UGGUMUDI CHANDRA REDDY Vs. PALAGANI KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard both sides. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Indian Constitution to set aside the Orders passed by the learned VII-Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Gudur in IA. No. 206 of 2016 in AS. No. 116 of 2016.

(2.) The petitioners herein who are appellants in AS No. 116 of 2016 filed petition under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive the documents mentioned in the list as an additional evidence, which petition has taken up for hearing by the learned trial Judge independently and dismissed the same. On perusal of records, which shows that at the first instance, the respondent herein filed suit OS. No. 140 of 1999 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners/appellants which was decreed. Against which, the petitioners preferred AS No. 1 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Then, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur allowed the appeal suit along with additional evidence petition and remanded the appeal suit to trial Court for fresh disposal as per Judgment, dtd. 6/3/2012. Against which, the respondent/plaintiff preferred CMA No. 728 of 2012 before this Court and then this Court allowed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and remanded the matter back to the appellate Court with an observation that "accordingly, this CMA is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh disposal of the additional evidence petition in the first instance and then proceed to decide the appeal each in accordance with law. All the miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs". Then after establishment of Additional District Court at Gudur, the appeal suit has been made over to VII-Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Gudur and re-numbered as AS No. 116 of 2016. As per the Orders of this Court in CMA No. 728 of 2012, the learned appellate Judge has independently taken up the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dismissed the petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the documents which they filed along with petition are essential to prove their case, which wrongly dismissed by the trial Court. During the course of hearing of this civil revision petition, the learned Advocates representing both parties fairly submitted that additional evidence petition has to be disposed of along with appeal suit and not independently. For which, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners also relied on a decision in State of Rajasthan, Appellant vs. T.N. Sahani and others (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 619. Respondents, wherein it is held at para 4, which reads as under: