JAMMALA RAMULU Vs. JAMMALA RAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed a suit being O.S. No. 31 /91 on the file of District Munsif, Medchal, Rangareddy district against the lather of the present petitioner namely late J. Pentaiah. The suit was decreed on 2nd March, 1995. When the suit was decreed the defendant i.e., late J. Pentaiah was alive and he filed an appeal being A.S. No. 28 of 1995 before II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy district at Saroornagar. The appellant Sri Pentaiah died on 1st March, 1997. The present petitioner became party to the appeal as legal heir of late Sri J. Pentaiah. He moved an application before the appellate Court in October, 1997 praying that an agreement executed between the parties to the suit dated 28th January, 1990 be received as additional evidence. The application has been rejected by the appellate Court. Hence this revision.

(2.) The suit had been filed in the year 1991, it was decreed on 2nd March,1995 and an application for receiving the additional evidence was made only in October, 1997. In para-4 of the application moved before the appellate Court the petitioner stated that, it was because of oversight that the agreement of January, 1990 was not produced before the Trial Court. He submitted that in between the parties there were two agreements one dated 26-10-1975 and another dated 28-1-1990, both had been produced before the Revenue authorities and while taking the evidence of the Revenue authorities it transpired that agreement dated 28-1-1990 was not reflected in the revenue records for reasons not known to the petitioner. Subsequently, in the application it has been stated by the petitioner that the original of the said agreement dated 28-1-1990 had been misplaced and could not be filed earlier.

(3.) An application for receiving additional evidence at the appellate stagecould only be allowed if conditions laid down in Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. are satisfied. Rule 27 lays down: