ORDER : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 28.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.14 of 2009 in A.S.No.19 of 2007, on the file of the Appellate Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. 2. The revision petitioner has laid the suit in O.S.No.153 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, against the respondents for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. The above said suit of the revision petitioner has been stoutly resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing the written statement. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the rival contentions put-forth by the respective parties and the materials placed on record, was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, it is found that the respondents had preferred the first appeal and pending first appeal, the application, in I.A.No.14 of 2009, had come to be laid by the respondents, under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to receive the document projected by them as additional evidence in the appeal and remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial. With reference to the same, according to the respondents, as against the decreeing of the suit laid by the revision petitioner by the Trial Court, they had preferred the first appeal and the Trial Court, in the Judgment, found that one Anushuya, who was the attestor to the report of the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and had given a letter to the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Thanjavur Housing Unit, Thanjavur, dated 21.06.2004, has not been examined and the same is adverse to the respondents, accordingly, chose to decree the suit in favour of the revision petitioner and only now, according to the respondents, they came to understand that the report, dated 16.02.2004 of the Assistant Engineer has not been marked as an exhibit in the suit and they have also traced out the letter sent by Anushuya, dated 21.06.2004, from the old records and necessitated to produce the same for deciding the issues involved between the parties and accordingly, prayed for the reception of the above said letter, dated 21.06.2004, as additional evidence and thereby, remand back the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial. 3. 3. The above said application of the respondents had been stoutly resisted by the revision petitioner contending that the respondents had not chosen to examine Anushuya, who is stated to be the witness at the time of the inspection made by the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in the Trial Court and in fact, according to the revision petitioner, both the revision petitioner as well as the respondents took summons to her, but despite the receipt of the summons, the said Anushuya has not appeared before the Trial Court and disputed the contention of the respondents that she is the main witness to prove the case of the respondents and further, according to her, the letter said to have been written by Anushuya, dated 21.06.2004, has already been produced before the Trial Court and the said document was not marked due to the absence of Anushuya and furthermore, according to her, Anushuya had given letters in favour of the revision petitioner denying the execution of the letter, dated 21.06.2004 and the said letter had been marked on the side of the revision petitioner and therefore, it is stated that the letter, dated 21.06.2004, of Anushuya is not a material and relevant document and further, disputed the case of the respondents that the above said letter had been traced by them only recently, on the other hand, the said document had already been mentioned in the written statement of the respondents and based on the same, they had been proceeding with the matter and only to protract the litigation one way or the other, they had come forward with the application and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Court below, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, accepted the projected document as additional evidence and however, refused to accede to the plea of remand put-forth by the respondents holding that the same could be determined only during the course of the hearing of the main appeal and thereby, allowed the application preferred by the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 5. The revision petitioner's suit laid against the respondents ended in a decree in her favour. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents preferred the first appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been laid. 5. The revision petitioner's suit laid against the respondents ended in a decree in her favour. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents preferred the first appeal. Pending first appeal, the respondents have come forward with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to receive the projected document as additional evidence in the appeal. According to the respondents, one Anushuya stood as an attestor to the report of the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and furthermore, in that connection, she has also sent a letter, dated 21.06.2004 and according to the respondents, inasmuch as the said letter could be secured only recently from the old records, they had been necessitated to project the same as additional evidence in the matter and hence, the application. 6. Per contra, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the above said letter, dated 21.06.2004, of Anushuya had already been referred to in the written statement of the respondents and despite the summons taken to Anushuya, both by the revision petitioner as well as the respondents, she has not chosen to enter appearance and therefore, the said letter could not be marked. Furthermore, according to the revision petitioner, the said Anushuya herself has repudiated the above said letter in the communication sent by her to the revision petitioner and therefore, it is stated that the case of the respondents that they had become aware of the letter, dated 21.06.2004, of Anushuya only recently and necessitated to project the same as additional evidence, is not legally sustainable and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 7. As rightly contended by the revision petitioner, it is seen that even in the written statement, in Paragraph No.11, the respondents have clearly averred about the letter, dated 21.06.2004, sent by Anushuya to them and that she has signed as attestor to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, dated 16.02.2004 and therefore, the case projected by the respondents that they had become aware of the said letter only recently, as such, cannot be readily countenanced. Furthermore, the revision petitioner has put-forth the case that summons had been taken to Anushuya for examining her, both by her and the respondents and however, the said Anushuya has not entered appearance in the matter. Furthermore, the revision petitioner has put-forth the case that summons had been taken to Anushuya for examining her, both by her and the respondents and however, the said Anushuya has not entered appearance in the matter. The said fact has been controverted by the respondents. 8. Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. provides for three criteria for the reception of additional evidence at the appellate stage. The first criterion is that if the document projected as additional evidence has been refused to be admitted in evidence by the Trial Court. From the case projected by the respondents, it is seen that they had not pleaded that the letter, dated 21.06.2004, of Anushuya had been refused to be admitted in evidence by the Trial Court. When the said letter has not even been projected before the Trial Court, the question of admitting or refusing the same does not arise. Therefore, the first criterion for enabling the respondents to project the additional evidence is not satisfied. 9. The second criterion is that despite due diligence, the projected document was not within the knowledge of the respondent and only after the exercise of due diligence, the same could be produced by them at the time of the appeal. As above noted, the respondents have clearly averred in the written statement about the letter of Anushuya, dated 21.06.2004 and the factum of she being an attestor to the report, dated 16.02.2004, of the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, it is found that the respondents are fully aware of the alleged letter said to have been given by Anushuya, dated 21.06.2004. Therefore, the respondents cannot plead that they had come to know about the same for the first time at the appellate stage. If really, the above said document is essential for the case of the respondents, as rightly pointed out by the revision petitioner's counsel, all endeavours should have been made by the respondents to project the said document before the Trial Court. When it is found that the respondents are fully aware of the said letter, if really the above said letter is material for advancing the case of the respondents, the respondents should have taken sincere efforts to trace the letter and project the same during the course of trial. When it is found that the respondents are fully aware of the said letter, if really the above said letter is material for advancing the case of the respondents, the respondents should have taken sincere efforts to trace the letter and project the same during the course of trial. On the other hand, to say that the said letter had come to be secured by the respondents only recently from the old records cannot be accepted and with reference to the above said case of the respondents, no material has been placed. It has not been explained as to who had endeavoured to search the records of the respondents and at whose instance the said record had come to be secured and when the letter, now sought to be projected as additional evidence, had come to be secured from the old records, with reference to all these facts, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the respondents. However, the Court below, on the footing that inasmuch as the respondents' establishment is being manned by various persons now and then and as the person, who had been manning the respondents' establishment during the course of trial, has not evinced interest to trace the letter of Anushuya and subsequently, the man, now in-charge of the respondents' establishment, had traced the letter, in such view of the matter, proceeded to accept the document projected by the respondents as additional evidence, on the footing that the above said document is essential for rectifying the adverse findings of the Trial Court against the respondents and on that footing as well as holding that the above said letter would also be useful to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the Judgment (the third criterion), accepted the case of the respondents. Therefore, it is seen that the Court below mainly for enabling the respondents to rectify the adverse findings taken by the Trial Court against them had chosen to admit the additional evidence. But, it is not the ground stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for the reception of the additional evidence. Therefore, it is seen that the Court below mainly for enabling the respondents to rectify the adverse findings taken by the Trial Court against them had chosen to admit the additional evidence. But, it is not the ground stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for the reception of the additional evidence. When the alleged document projected as additional evidence is much known to the respondents during the course of trial and furthermore, when it is found that both the revision petitioner as well as the respondents had endeavoured to summon the said Anushuya and she having not entered appearance, in such view of the matter, the respondents having not proceeded further with reference to the above said aspects of the matter in the manner known to law, now cannot turn around and plead that the letter of Anushuya is essential for projecting their defence. As to why the respondents had not endeavoured to secure the said letter during the course of trial, despite having knowledge about the same, has not been properly explained. Therefore, the reasonings of the Court below that the reception of additional evidence would be useful to the respondents to overturn the adverse inference drawn by the Trial Court against them, as such, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the reasonings of the Court below that the reception of additional evidence would be useful to the respondents to overturn the adverse inference drawn by the Trial Court against them, as such, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. When it is found that both the parties are aware of the alleged letter, dated 21.06.2004, of Anushuya, one party disputing the same and other party also adverting to the same in their written statement and despite the position being above, when the respondents, in particular, had not chosen to produce the said letter for the reasons best known to them, during the course of trial and furthermore, when the said Anushuya has not chosen to enter appearance in the matter, despite the summons having been sent to her, in all, it is found that the said letter is not at all essential for disposing of the appeal as determined by the Court below and on the other hand, the Court below had chosen to admit the reception of the additional evidence only for enabling the respondents to overcome the adverse inference drawn against the them by the Trial Court and when the above said cause has not been cited as the ingredient for the reception of the additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., it is found that the Court below had erred in accepting the reception of the additional evidence projected by the respondents. Furthermore, the Trial Court had not accepted the revision petitioner's case mainly on the basis of the adverse inference against the respondents for not examining Anushuya and not marking the letter dated, 21.06.2004, and on the other hand, decreed the suit of the revision petitioner, on the basis of the materials placed on record by the respective parties. 10. As rightly put-forth by the revision petitioner's counsel, the Court below had admitted the reception of the additional evidence only for the filling-up the lacunae in the defence of the respondents one way or the other and therefore, its determination that the additional evidence, now sought to be projected, would be useful to enable it to pronounce the Judgment, as such, cannot be countenanced. When the efforts of the Trial Court to summon and examine the said Anushuya, at the instance of the revision petitioner as well as the respondents, did not fructify and thereafter, the respondents have also not endeavoured to take further steps to secure the presence of Anushuya for defending their case, in all, it is found that inasmuch as the additional evidence, now sought to be projected, is not essential for determining the issues involved between the parties, it is found that the respondents have not evinced interest in taking further action for summoning the said Anushuya as a witness on their behalf during the course of trial. Therefore, the determination of the Court below that the above said additional evidence would enable it to pronounce the Judgment, as such, cannot be countenanced. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order of the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs and the fair and decreetal orders, dated 28.07.2009, passed in I.A.No.14 of 2009 in A.S.No.19 of 2007, on the file of the Appellate Tribunal/Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, are set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.14 of 2009 laid by the respondents is hereby dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.