JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/plaintiff in C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015 and appellant/plaintiff in C.M.A.No.527 of 2015 and Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 in both C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015 and C.M.A.No.527 of 2015. 2. C.M.A.No.527 of 2015 is directed against the Judgment, dtd. 27/4/2015 passed in Appeal Suit No.12 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.381 of 2003, dtd. 28/2/2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama. 3. C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015 is directed against the Order, dtd. 27/4/2015 passed in I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama. 4. The revision-petitioner in C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015, and appellant in C.M.A.No.527 of 2015 is the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013; respondent/plaintiff in A.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama and plaintiff in O.S.No.381 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Nandigama. The respondents in C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015 are the petitioners/defendants in I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013; appellants/defendants in A.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama and defendants in O.S.No.381 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Nandigama. 5. The respondents/defendants in revision-petition and miscellaneous appeal, filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "CPC") vide I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013. 6. Parties to the present revision-petition and miscellaneous appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/plaintiff in C.R.P.No.2704 of 2015 and appellant in C.M.A.No.527 of 2015 would submit that the learned First Appellate Court Judge erroneously allowed the I.A.No.914 of 2014 filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC though conditions required to receive additional evidence in an appeal are not existed, and thereby committed material irregularity, by remitting the suit to the Trial Court for examination of witness to bring the additional evidence on record, and to decide the matter afresh. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants would submit that in spite of due diligence, defendants could not produce the documents which were filed before the First Appellate Court under the impugned order and had these documents filed before the Trial Court, the suit would be dismissed and hence, the First Appellate Judge rightly allowed the application and remitted the suit to the Trial Court to examine the concerned witness regarding the additional evidence, by giving opportunity to both sides and to pass the Judgment, afresh. 9. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision Petition is as under: "Whether the First Appellate Court committed any material irregularity in its impugned Order, dtd. 27/4/2015 in I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013 by receiving the additional evidence produced under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and remitting the suit to the Trial Court vide Judgment in A.S.No.12 of 2013, dtd. 27/4/2015?" 10. POINT: - It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and possession thereof by cancelling the Sale Deed, dtd. 2/12/2004. 11. The plaintiff's contention is that the 1st defendant is father, 2nd defendant is brother, 4th defendant is sister's daughter of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff, D.1, D.2 and mother of D.4 are members of Hindu Joint Family and D.1 was "kartha" of the family and that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties and mother of the 4th defendant died on 8/3/1993 leaving behind the 4th defendant as legal heir and while so, the plaintiff's marriage was performed on 29/2/1989 and no partition of joint family properties took place earlier, and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. 12. 12. The contention of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that, plaintiff's marriage was solemnized on 29/6/1983 and subsequently, due to disputes, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home and reached the parents house; plaintiff filed an application for divorce and it was decreed in the year 1985: and at the time of plaintiff's first marriage, defendant No.1 has given Ac.1.00 cents of land to the plaintiff in R.S.No.171/2A of Konakanchi village and it was sold later at the request of plaintiff for her education; later, second marriage of the plaintiff was performed on 29/2/1989 and at that time, defendant No.1 again has given one more acre of land in R.S.No.176/2 and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to further share in the plaint schedule property. 13. The learned Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence placed by both parties in the suit, decreed the suit holding that the plaint schedule properties be partitioned into four (04) equal shares and one such share be allotted to the plaintiff with possession thereof. Questioning the Judgment and Decree, the defendants, preferred A.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District & Sessions Court, Nandigama. The defendants filed I.A.No.914 of 2014 in A.S.No.12 of 2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Their contention is that Ac.1.00 cents of land in R.S.No.176/2 of Konakanchi village was given to the plaintiff at the time of her second marriage towards her share in the joint family properties; during the trial of the suit in O.S.No.381 of 2003, the Village Revenue Officer, Konakanchi was examined as D.W.4; and he deposed that pass books were issued in favour of the plaintiff for Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.176/2, but he could not produce the record relating to pass book and title deed, as they were not available to him at that time. Therefore, the Trial Court pronounced the Judgment holding that the defendants did not establish their case; later, the defendants came to know that the Government issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff and then the defendants obtained certified copy of 1B Register and Adangals, which would disclose that Ac.1.00 cents of land in R.S.No.176/2 stands in the name of plaintiff; therefore, they filed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, as this additional evidence would establish the defendants case and clinch the issue in favour of the defendants. 14. 14. The learned First Appellate Judge considered the above contention of both sides and opined that the defendants made an attempt to produce the impugned evidence to substantiate their claim before the Trial Court, but, unfortunately, the revenue people failed to produce the complete record in respect of the land in R.S.No.176/2 of Konakanchi village, though Village Revenue Officer was examined as D.W.4 by the defendants; and in the said circumstances, if additional evidence is received, it will enable the Court to arrive at a just decision, and accordingly allowed the application and consequently remitted the suit to the Trial Court to examine witness with reference to additional evidence produced by the defendants by giving opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses, and to dispose of the suit afresh and also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as per law, as expeditiously as possible. 15. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandates that the parties are required to adduce their evidence before the Trial Court. But, in the circumstances laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence can be adduced before the Appellate Court, which reads as under: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. - (1) 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. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 16. Reading of the above provision would show that the parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court, except for the three situations mentioned above. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 16. Reading of the above provision would show that the parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court, except for the three situations mentioned above. However, at the same time where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit, such application may be allowed. It depends upon whether the appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand,2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 at para-No.4 held as under: "It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. As observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy Chettiar vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar,(2015) 17 SCC 713 the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced." 18. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the defendants tried to place evidence before the Trial Court in support of their plea i.e., Ac.1.00 cents of land in R.S.No.176/2 was given to the plaintiff at the time of her second marriage. The defendants examined D.W.4/Village Revenue Officer, Konakanchi village; but they could not produce the relevant documents i.e., pattadar passbook and title deed issued by the revenue authorities, as D.W.4 deposed that those documents were not available at that time. 19. Therefore, facts would show that defendants in spite of due diligence, could not produce these documents before the Trial Court. Therefore, had these documents were placed before the Trial Court, it would arrive at a just conclusion on main issue of plaintiff's share in the suit property. Therefore, the Appellate Court would require this evidence to pronounce the Judgment on substantial issue i.e., plaintiff's share in the suit property. 20. In the light of said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no material irregularity committed by the learned First Appellate Judge while allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and remitting the suit to the Trial Court with above directions for disposal of the suit, afresh. 21. 20. In the light of said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no material irregularity committed by the learned First Appellate Judge while allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and remitting the suit to the Trial Court with above directions for disposal of the suit, afresh. 21. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition No.2704 of 2015 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.527 of 2015 are "Dismissed" with directions, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in both revision-petition and miscellaneous appeal, shall stand closed. 23. However, since the suit was filed in the year 2003, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of this Order, as per directions of the learned First Appellate Court, without influenced by any of the observation made in this Order.