ANUMANTHU VENKATA RAMANA Vs. VENKADARU SUBBARAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order passed in an Insolvency petition being I.P. No.3 of 1989 was challenged by way of appeal before the II Additional District Judge, Eluru who dismissed the appeal. The appellate Court's order is challenged in this revision. Various grounds have been taken to challenge the order under revision, but in view of what this Court is about to hold, all the grounds agitated before this Court are not being considered. It is seen that while the appeal was pending an application came to be filed by the petitioner on 30th August, 1999 in which the petitioner sought permission to lead additional evidence. He wanted to bring on record and mark certain copies of the sale deeds which according to him had bearing over the matter. This application was entertained by the Court below on 31st August, 1999, notice was given to other side as is evident from the copies of docket orders produced, counter was not filed, there were several opportunities given to the respondents in the application but on 8-11-1999 the appellate Court observed that the Advocate for the respondents reported no instructions. The order also shows that counter had not been filed. Thereafter the application was posted for 18-11-99. On 18-11-99 the main appeal Was disposed of. The application was disposed of with the following order "As the, main petition is disposed, of. this petition is closed." Since, admittedly an application was moved during the pendency of the appeal for the purpose of getting additional evidence on record, it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to decide the application one way or the other in accordance with law. Since this application was not decided, therefore. I feel that the petitioner got prejudiced. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the reasons given for disallowing the appeal are sufficient to conclude that the application for bringing on record the additional evidence should not have been entertained. This Court cannot presume whether the appellate Court wanted to dismiss this application and if so for what reasons. Time and again this Court and the Apex Court has laid down law that whenever an order is passed which is subject to appeal or revision, reasons must be given so that the appellate Court or the revisional Court, as the case may be shall have fair idea as to what has weighed with the lower Court while taking a particular view in the matter. Practically, in this case, the application seeking production of Additional evidence has been rejected by the appellate Court but no reasons are known to this Court. Therefore, it will be difficult to come to a conclusion whether this rejection was lawful or not. For this reason alone the order passed in appeal is set aside. The learned Appellate Court is directed to hear the parties on the application for additional evidence and pass appropriate orders and thereafter proceed to hear the appeal in accordance with law. The respondents who had not filed any counter to the application are now allowed to file their counter within two weeks. After their counter is filed the Court shall decide the application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The matter has been pending in the Court for a long time. Therefore the appeal should also be decided within a period of two months. The parties are directed through their Counsel to appear before the appellate Court on 6th of November, 2000 without any further notice from the Court below.