Madras High Court
Muthaiah ... Civil Revision vs Kannan on 11 July, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1504 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD) No.6538 of 2018
Muthaiah ... Civil Revision Petitioner/
Petitioner/Appellant
-vs-
Kannan ... Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.70
of 2017 in A.S.No.09 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Judge,
Pudukkottai, dated 26.06.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Boome Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
order passed in I.A.No.70 of 2017 in A.S.No.09 of 2015 on the file of the
Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 26.06.2018.
2. The short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition
are that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. He filed a suit in
O.S.No.45 of 2013 for the relief of declaration, on the ground that the
property was settled by his father Mr.Vellaisamy, who purchased the property
from one Karuppan Chettiar. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that
taking advantage of the defendant's father being a Karnam made some
alteration in the revenue records and as such, claimed title over the property.
Therefore, he filed a suit for declaration and injunction.
3. The trial Court after elaborately discussing all the aspects has
dismissed the suit for declaration. Against which, it appears that the plaintiff
has filed appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2015. While so, when the appeal was pending,
the plaintiff/petitioner has come forward with an application in I.A.No.70 of
2017 to receive the additional document namely, the suit register extract in
O.S.No.116 of 1961, dated 29.03.1961.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
4. The learned trial Judge, after going to the merits of the matter, found
that the very application was filed belatedly and ultimately, dismissed the
application.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court, the petitioner has
come up with the instant revision petition. In order to decide the instant
revision petition, it is very much relevant to extract the pleadings of the
affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.70 of 2017 para No.2 reads as
follows:
“ 2. I humbly submit that the suit filed by the
plaintiff for declaration and injunction is based on the
original suit in O.S.No.116 of 1961 on the file of the
Hon'ble District Munsif, Pudukottai. To substantiate my
case it has become necessary to file additional document
on my side for proper adjudication of the case. The
document now I rely upon is the certified copy of the
above referred suit, which is required to prove my case on
its face. Unless the additional document detailed in the
accompanying petition is received and marked on the
appellant side I will be serious prejudiced.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
As per the above pleadings, no ingredients could be found as stipulated in
Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C.
6. For ready reference Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C is extracted
hereunder:
“(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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to
be produced by an appellate Court the Court shall
record the reason for its admission.
7. But, in this case, the ground alleged by the petitioner is that they
need to file the additional documents only to substantiate the case, but, he has
not put forth any of the grounds raised under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the instant Civil Revision Petition
do not deserve any affirmative orders from this Court as the order of the trial
Court is well considered.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
11.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).No.1504 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1504 of 2018
11.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
