ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') is filed, questioning the order in IA No. 460 of 2019 in AS No. 15 of 2017 dated 3.7.2019, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, whereby the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., was disposed of independently, during pendency of appeal, thereby the order is illegal. 2. The petitioners/appellants (for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the appellate Court) filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., seeking leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence in the appeal annexing two documents, alleging that the petitioners preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in OS No. 295 of 2010, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. The petitioners' father purchased the schedule property through Dama Venkatrayulu Chetty, Dama Narayana Chetty, Dama Chennakesavulu Chetty, Dama Subbaramaiah Chetty and Dama Sathyanarayana Chetty under agreement of sale letter. At the time of filing written statement in the above suit, the petitioners filed xerox copy of document and it is shown in S. No. 10 i.e. agreement of sale letter dated 13.9.1982. At that time, the original was not available, thereby the agreement of sale letter could not be produced before the Court, during trial of the suit and seeks permission to adduce additional evidence. 3. The respondent/respondent filed counter, denying the material allegations, more particularly based on the plea in the main suit itself. The respondent raised several contentions to claim relief, particularly to decide the present controversy, therefore, they are not extracted in the present order, since the only ground urged before this Court is that the petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., cannot be disposed of, independently, during pendency of the appeal. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that disposal of petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., during pendency of appeal is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court and an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. cannot be decided, independently, and it has to be considered alongwith the main appeal. Therefore, the order is illegal and requested to set aside the same. 5. Therefore, the order is illegal and requested to set aside the same. 5. During hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Ramesh Babu, while reiterating the contentions, placed reliance on two judgments of Apex Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619 and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 . On the strength of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the Counsel requested to set aside the order impugned in the revision petition. 6. No representation by the Counsel for the respondent, no argument advanced by the respondent's Counsel. 7. Admittedly an appeal is pending against the decree and judgment in OS No. 295 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi and the petitioner filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., seeking permission to adduce additional evidence at the trial stage. The appellate Court, while exercising power under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., permit the parties, subject to satisfying the three requirements enumerated in the Rule, the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. Therefore, the power is conferred on the appellate Court, to grant leave to adduce additional evidence or produce additional documentary evidence, but subject to limitations prescribed under Rule 27; but such application has to be considered alongwith the appeal and cannot be decided, independently, during pendency of the appeal, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan's case (supra), the Apex Court candidly held that it was open to the Court to look into documents and for that purpose amended provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27(b) of C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. should have been decided alongwith the appeal. Had the Court found the documents are necessary to pronounce judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing the appeal, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. 8. The same view is reiterated in the later judgment in Union of India's case (supra). Therefore, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the two judgments, the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi is irregular and contrary to the principles laid down in the above judgments. Hence, if find that it is a fit case to set aside the order, while remanding IA No. 460 of 2019 in AS No. 15 of 2017 to the appellate Court i.e. Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi and restore to its original number in the I.A. register and hear and dispose of the petition alongwith the main appeal, subject to the final opinion to be formed at the time of hearing and if the Court feels that the petitioner can be permitted to adduce additional oral evidence or produce any additional document, the procedure prescribed under Order XLI, Rule 28 of C.P.C., is to be followed. 9. With the above direction, the revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.