A BHAGYAVATHI Vs. A SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in S.A.428/85 is the petitioner in the Review C.M.P. She is D-1 in O.S.1100/76, Addl. District Munsif, Rajahmundry. The 2nd appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 13-7-1989, This review petition was filed by alleging that she discovered new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within her knowledge and so it could not be produced by her at the time when the decree was passed in this Second Appeal. The evidence referred to is a petition dated 12-12-56 filed by Ganga Raju, the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 requesting Gram Panchayat Kateru to delete his name from the house tax register and enter the name of D-2 in regard to the plaint schedule house.

(2.) One of the grounds under which the review can be prayed is the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made (vide Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C.). Under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C., additional evidence can be permitted during the pendency of the first appeal, if the conditions referred to therein exist

(3.) Rules of Order 41 shall apply so far as may be to appeals from appellate decrees i.e., Second Appeals vide Order 42, Rule 1 C.P.C. Second Appeal ties if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, (vide Sec.100 CP.C.). If the evidence on record is sufficient, the High Court may, in any Second Appeal, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal, which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both by the court of first instance and the lower appellate court or which has been wrongly determined by such court or courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in Section 100 C.P.C (vide Sec.103 CP.C).