C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant in o. S. No. 87 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, is the appellant. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of rs. 26858-80ps. with interest being the arrears of Maktha due from the appellant for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. The case of the respondent is that appellant took Ac, 16-00 in Survey Nos. 125, 129/2, and 77/4 at Kowali village on lease agreeing to pay 120 bags of paddy per year on or before 31st January of every year and fell in arrears of rent. In his written statement appellant admitted the tenancy and the makta agreed to be paid. His contention is that due to unprecedented cyclones and climatic conditions the entire crop in the land taken on lease by him was damaged during 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and so he filed petition under the Tenancy Act seeking remission and so the respondent is not entitled to the suit amount. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties the Trial Court decreed the suit and that decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 115 of 1987 preferred by the appellant. Hence, this second Appeal. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant filed a petition to call for the adangals for the years 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80 the lower appellate Court did not permit him to and so the case may be remitted to the trial or lower appellate court and permit the appellant to adduce fresh evidence. ( 4 ) I find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Adangals are public documents and so appellant could have obtained certified copies of the Adangals and produced them before the trial Court. Adducing fresh evidence or additional evidence in appeal is not a matter of right unless the ingredients mentioned in Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC are satisfied appellate Court would not give permission to a party to adduce additional evidence in appeal. In respect of public documents of which certified copies can be taken production of original is wholly unnecessary. Adducing fresh evidence or additional evidence in appeal is not a matter of right unless the ingredients mentioned in Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC are satisfied appellate Court would not give permission to a party to adduce additional evidence in appeal. In respect of public documents of which certified copies can be taken production of original is wholly unnecessary. In those circumstances, appellant filing a petition in the appeal before the lower appellate Court to send for the original adangals, without producing certified copies thereof either in the Trial court or appellate Court, is but an abuse of process of Court. So, the lower appellate court rejecting the petition to send for documents cannot be said to be erroneous. ( 5 ) PETITION filed by the appellant before the tenancy Court under Section 8 of A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act seeking remission of rent was dismissed. The appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed. When the petition filed by the tenant for remission under Section 8 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act was dismissed, tenant cannot seek relief of remission in the suit filed by the landlord for recovery of rent. When power to grant a relief is vested in a Special Tribunal it is the Special Tribunal only that can grant such relief, and the Civil Court s jurisdiction to grant such relief stands ousted. So even if there was total failure of crop in 1977-78 to 1979-80 as contended by the appellant, since the petition filed by the appellant before the Special Tribunal constituted under the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, was dismissed, civil Court cannot interfere and reduce the rent agreed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the respondent is entitled to a decree in its favour needs no interference in this second appeal. ( 7 ) HENCE the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.