Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC= Even though sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate Court, it shall record the reasons for its admission, by failing to oppose the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner has waived his right to question the order of the lower appellate Court. As regards C.R.P.No.187 of 2013, though a wrong provision was cited by the respondent, instead of referring to Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the order if the Court has jurisdiction to pass such an order. The lower appellate Court has allowed I.A.No.19 of 2013 mainly on the ground that it has already allowed I.A.No.1657 of 2012 permitting the respondent to file additional documents. As the very purpose of granting such permission is to bring the documents on file, this purpose can be served only by recalling one of the parties on whose behalf these documents have been filed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error, jurisdictional or otherwise in allowing I.A.No.19 of 2013. In any event, the lower appellate Court has protected the interests of the petitioner by receiving the documents subject to their proof and relevancy.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

Civil Revision Petition Nos.187 and 573 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between

M.V. Ranga Reddy                                                                      

            ... Petitioner

(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

And

Mechalli Gangamma                 

                                                ... Respondent

(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Suresh Reddy

(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

Counsel for the respondent: ---

(C.R.P.No.187 of 2013)

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Both these civil revision petitions involve common subject matter between the same parties.  Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.

Civil Revision Petition No.187 of 2013 is filed against order, dated 04.01.2013, in I.A.No.19 of 2013 in A.S. No.105 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Anantapur.  Civil Revision Petition No.573 of 2013 arises out of order, dated 31.12.2012, in I.A. No.1657 of 2012 in A.S. No.105 of 2012, of the same Court. 

The petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is the respondent in A.S. No. 105 of 2012 before the lower appellate Court. 

 The respondent herein, who filed the said appeal, filed I.A. No.1657 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for receiving 14 documents as additional evidence.  This application was allowed by the lower appellate Court subject to their proof and relevancy.  

Following the said order, the respondent filed I.A. No.19 of 2013 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW.2 to adduce additional evidence in order to mark the documents filed by him.  

This application was also allowed by the lower appellate Court, by order, dated 04.01.2013.

At the hearing, Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the lower appellate Court in I.A.No.1657 of 2012 allowing the respondent to file additional documents suffers from error as no reasons as envisaged by sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC have been rendered by the Court.  The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that his client has not filed counter affidavit opposing the said application, even though at the time of service of a copy of I.A.No.1657 of 2012, his counsel has made an endorsement to the effect that notice is taken, the application is opposed and that time is prayed for counter.  The petitioner has also not pleaded in this civil revision petition that the I.A., was specifically opposed at least during hearing.

Even though sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the appellate Court, it shall record the reasons for its admission, by failing to oppose the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner has waived his right to question the order of the lower appellate Court. 

As regards C.R.P.No.187 of 2013, though a wrong provision was cited by the respondent, instead of referring to Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the order if the Court has jurisdiction to pass such an order.  The lower appellate Court has allowed I.A.No.19 of 2013 mainly on the ground that it has already allowed I.A.No.1657 of 2012 permitting the respondent to file additional documents.  As the very purpose of granting such permission is to bring the documents on file, this purpose can be served only by recalling one of the parties on whose behalf these documents have been filed.  Therefore, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error, jurisdictional or otherwise in allowing I.A.No.19 of 2013.  In any event, the lower appellate Court has protected the interests of the petitioner by receiving the documents subject to their proof and relevancy.         

For the above-mentioned reasons, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision revisions, the interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

                                                  

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

21^st February, 2013.

Mgr/VGB