( 1 ) THESE three revisions are filed by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in O. S. No. 9 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil judge, Sircilla. They were arrayed in the same position as respondents in A. S. No. 24 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 herein filed the suit for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property admeasuring 427 square yards in Survey No. 688 of Sircilla town. They traced their title to the purchase made by one Mr. Irukula Venkanna, the elder brother of their grand father. It was alleged that the petitioners have unauthorisedly and unlawfully encroached the suit schedule property and made constructions. The suit was resisted by the petitioners herein and other defendants. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 27-4-2002. Respondents 1 to 3 filed A. S. No. 24 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional district Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar, and the same is pending disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioners filed three applications viz. , I. A. No. 109 of 2004 to permit them to lead additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 (1) C. P. C. , I. A. No. 110 of 2004 to receive a document viz. , a sale deed, dated 27-3-1940 and I. A. No. 24 of 2004 to receive another document being the certified copy of khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 in respect of Survey No. 688 of Sircilla town. These applications were resisted by respondents 1 to 3, on the ground that the documents are not relevant and that no case is made out to receive additional evidence. Through its order, dated 27-10-2004, the lower appellate court dismissed I. A. Nos. 109 and 110 of 2004. I. A. No. 24 of 2004 was dismissed, at an earlier point of time. These three C. R. P. Nos. 5982, 5920 and 6151 of 2004 are filed against the orders in the said applications. ( 4 ) SRI M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the documents which were sought to be marked as additional evidence, were not in possession and custody of the petitioners and it is only at a later point of time, they came to know about their existence. ( 4 ) SRI M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the documents which were sought to be marked as additional evidence, were not in possession and custody of the petitioners and it is only at a later point of time, they came to know about their existence. He contends that the said documents are in relation to survey No. 688 and that they had a direct bearing on the dispute in the appeal. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in State of Rajasthan v. T. N. Sahani, he contends that the lower appellate Court ought not to have dealt with the applications, except when the appeal itself was being heard. ( 5 ) SRI P. V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the lower appellate Court recorded cogent and valid reasons for rejecting the applications. He submits that once an application filed under Order 41 rule 27 C. P. C. is rejected, the only course open to the aggrieved party is to urge a ground in relation to the same in a further appeal and that the C. R. P. is not maintainable. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme court in Mahavir Singh v. Naresh Chandra, which, in turn, was followed by this Court in yatam Venkateswar and others v. Thurka narisimha Reddy. ( 6 ) ORDER41 Rule 27 C. P. C. empowers the appellate Court to receive additional evidence under the circumstances stipulated therein. The petitioners came forward with such an application and sought to place two documents before the lower appellate Court. The controversy, as to whether it is open to an appellate Court to deal with an application filed under Rule 27 Order 41 C. P. C. while hearing the appeal or at a stage before it, was put at rest by the Supreme Court in Sate of rajasthan s case (1 supra ). It was held that such applications are required to be taken up, while hearing the appeal and not at a stage earlier thereto. In that view of the matter, the orders under revisions cannot be sustained. The defect is not as to the nature of disposal given to it, but about the stage, at which they are taken up. It was held that such applications are required to be taken up, while hearing the appeal and not at a stage earlier thereto. In that view of the matter, the orders under revisions cannot be sustained. The defect is not as to the nature of disposal given to it, but about the stage, at which they are taken up. ( 7 ) IT is true that in Mahavir Singh s case, the Supreme Court held that if an application filed under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. is rejected by an appellate Court, the remedy is to raise a corresponding ground in the subsequent appeal and not by way of filing a revision under Section 151 C. P. C. However, if the ratio in case of State of Rajssthan (1 supra) is applied, this eventuality does not arise. On the other hand, if the application filed under Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. is dealt with, while hearing the appeal, the necessity to challenge the order separately does not arise. In a way, it can be said that if the principles laid in both the cases are read together, it would give rise to a situation of begging the question. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the fact that in State of Rajasthan s case (1 supra), the question as to the stage of disposal of the application was specifically dealt with, and squarely covers the facts of this case, the same is followed and the orders under revisions are set aside. The applications shall stand restored and the lower appellate court shall deal with the same, while hearing the appeal. It shall not treat the observations made by it in the orders under revisions as valid or binding. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.