JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 02.04.2024 in IA No.34 of 2024 in CMA No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The revision petitioner herein filed CMA No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2021 in C.No.G4/561/2020, dated 12.03.2021, passed by the District Registrar of Assurances and Collector, Vizianagaram, under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 3. Pending the said C.M.A., the respondents herein, i.e., the District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Santha Pet, Vizianagaram, and the Joint Sub-Registrar, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram District, filed IA No.34 of 2024 in CMA No.1 of 2021 to condone the delay in filing the documents and to grant leave to file and receive the additional documents and mark them as exhibits on behalf of the respondents, as they are essential for fixing the market value of the property. 4. The facts of the case are that: The petitioner herein has submitted the document styled as sale deed dated 19.06.2020 for registration and the Sub-Registrar denied to adopt the value as per Market Value Guidelines Register and requested to refer their case to the District Registrar, Vizianagaram, for determining the true value for the schedule property. Accordingly, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Cheepurupalli referred the case to the District Registrar and Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act alongwith connected material for determining the market value. The District Registrar exercising powers as Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, has determined the value of the land at Rs.2,000/- per Square yard. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the above CMA No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. While pending the said C.M.A., the respondents herein, who are also the respondents in the C.M.A., filed IA No.34 of 2024 in CMA No.1 of 2021 to condone the delay in filing the documents and to grant leave to file the same and receive and mark the documents as exhibits on their side to fix the correct market value. The said interlocutory application was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, vide order dated 02.04.2024 and the same was assailed in the present civil revision petition. 6. The said interlocutory application was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, vide order dated 02.04.2024 and the same was assailed in the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard learned Counsel for revision petitioner and no appearance is made by the respondents, despite service of notice, for whatever reason. 7. The Court makes the following order : The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619 , the Appellate Court should have decided the application to receive additional evidence alongwith the appeal, rather than addressing it at the initial stage. 8. In this regard, it is profitable to extract the relevant provision to answer the issue effectively. Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., reads thus : 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. 9. On careful perusal of the said rule, it indicates the following conditions: (1) The parties to the appeal shall not ordinarily be allowed to produce either oral or documentary evidence in Appellate Court. (2) To produce additional evidence, it should establish inspite of due diligence, they could not secure evidence or not within the knowledge of the party. (3) The Appellate Court requires any document or any evidence to enable to pronounce judgment effectively or for substantial cause may allow such evidence. 10. (2) To produce additional evidence, it should establish inspite of due diligence, they could not secure evidence or not within the knowledge of the party. (3) The Appellate Court requires any document or any evidence to enable to pronounce judgment effectively or for substantial cause may allow such evidence. 10. In the cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Sahani's case (supra), observed that it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided alongwith the appeal. After carefully considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is understood that dismissing an application at the initial stage may lead to prejudice or injustice to the petitioner. In the case cited, the application for receiving additional evidence was dismissed at the initial stage, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application should have been heard alongwith the appeal, though it need not necessarily be allowed. 11. Furthermore, sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 27 stipulates that the Court is empowered to receive additional evidence, if it is necessary to render a judgment effectively or for any other substantial reason. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 stipulates that when an application for additional evidence is allowed, the Court must record reasons for doing so; the only requirement is that the Court must provide reasons for granting the application. However, Rule 27 of Order 41 does not explicitly mandate that such an application must be heard together with the appeal. 12. Although the order does not provide a detailed order, the Trial Court has assigned a reason, observing that, in order to provide an opportunity and in the interest of justice, the application for receiving additional evidence was allowed. This Court does not find any perversity in the order. While the Court has exercised its discretion under sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, the Revisional Court should not ordinarily interfere unless it is established that the order is contrary to law or is perverse. 13. Except for the contention that the application ought to have been heard alongwith appeal, no other contention has been raised. However, the argument that the application for receiving additional evidence should be heard alongwith the appeal is untenable and unsustainable. 14. 13. Except for the contention that the application ought to have been heard alongwith appeal, no other contention has been raised. However, the argument that the application for receiving additional evidence should be heard alongwith the appeal is untenable and unsustainable. 14. In the present civil revision petition, the documents are required to assess the correct market value of the property to register the document. No fault can be attributed to the respondent authorities in this regard. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. 15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, however no costs. 16. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.