[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ravi vs Rajaram ... 1St on 28 November, 2025
CRP (PD) No.2131 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
CRP (PD) NO.2131 OF 2021
AND
CMP NO.161617 OF 2021
1.Ravi
2.Ramesh
3.Sudamani ... Petitioners / Petitioners /
Appellants / Defendants 3 to 5
Versus
1.Rajaram ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent
1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Rajamanickam
3.Rajeswari
4.Rajalakshmi
5.Rani ... Respondents 2-5 / Respondents 2-5/
Defendants 2, 6 to 8
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
passed in I.A.No.63 of 2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017 dated April 30, 2021 on
the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
CRP (PD) No.2131 of 2021
For Petitioners : Ms.G.Vaishali
for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates
For Respondent-1 : Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi
for M/s.Usha Ramman
For Respondent-2 : No appearance
For Respondents-
3&5 : Served – No appearance
For Respondent-4 : Refused
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is posted at the instance of the Revision
Petitioner/Defendants 3 to 5 under the cause list caption 'for being
mentioned'. This Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition vide its
Order dated October 31, 2025. This Order shall serve as an 'Addenda' to
the said Order dated October 31, 2025.
2.Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Defendants
3 to 5 brought to the notice of this Court that in Paragraph No.3, a factual
error has crept in and prays for rectification of the same.
3.The first line in Paragraph No.3 of the said Order dated October
31, 2025 reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
“One Karuppudayar has four sons and four daughters.”
4.While Karuppudayar has only three daughters, inadvertently it has
been mentioned as if he has four daughters. Hence, the first line of
Paragraph No.3 of the aforesaid Order shall be read as follows:
“One Karuppudayar has four sons and three daughters.”
5.Consequent to the aforesaid error, another error has occurred in
the third line of Paragraph No.3 of the said Order. The 3rd line reads thus:
“His daughters were added as Defendants 5 to 8.”
6.The same shall be read as “His wife and daughters were added as
Defendants 5 to 8.”
7.Registry is directed to annex this Addenda to the Order dated
October 31, 2025.
28.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
pam
To
The Principal District Judge,
Principal District Court,
Perambalur.
CRP (PD) NO.2131 OF 2021
28.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
CRP (PD) NO.2131 OF 2021
AND
CMP NO.161617 OF 2021
1.Ravi
2.Ramesh
3.Sudamani ... Petitioners / Petitioners /
Appellants / Defendants 3 to 5
Versus
1.Rajaram ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent
1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2.Rajamanickam
3.Rajeswari
4.Rajalakshmi
5.Rani ... Respondents 2-5 / Respondents 2-5/
Defendants 2, 6 to 8
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order
passed in I.A.No.63 of 2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017 dated April 30, 2021 on
the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
For Petitioners : Ms.G.Vaishali
for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates
For Respondent-1 : Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi
for M/s.Usha Ramman
For Respondent-2 : No appearance
For Respondents-3&5: Served – No appearance
For Respondent-4 : Refused
ORDER
Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated April 30, 2021 passed
by the ‘Principal District Court, Perambalur' ['First Appellate Court' for
short] in the Interlocutory Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 and
Section 151 of the 'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short]
numbered as I.A.No.63 of 2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017, the Revision
Petitioners / Appellants / Defendants 3 to 5 have preferred this Civil
Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2.The Revision Petitioners herein are the Appellants and first
Respondent herein is the Respondent in the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.02 of
2017 on the file of the First Appellate Court. The Revision Petitioners
herein are the Defendants 3 to 5, the 1st respondent herein is the Plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
and the Respondents 2 to 5 herein are the Defendants 2 and 6 to 8 in the
Original Suit in O.S.No.125 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Ariyalur,
which was later transferred on the file 'Sub Court, Perambalur' ('Trial
Court' for short) and renumbered as O.S.No.142 of 2008.
2.1.For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will
be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3.One Karuppudayar has four sons and four daughters. One of
the sons, namely Rajaram filed an Original Suit against his father
Karuppudayar and his brothers in O.S.No.125 of 2001 on the file of Sub
Court, Ariyalur, which was later transferred and renumbered as
O.S.No.142 of 2008 on the file of the Trial Court, seeking to divide the
Suit Properties into five equal shares and allot of one such share to him.
During the pendency of the said Suit, Karuppudayar (first Defendant)
passed away. His daughters were added as Defendants 5 to 8. The
plaintiff's brothers Ravi and Ramesh filed an Original Suit for injunction
against his another brother Rajamanickam (2nd respondent in the Suit) in
O.S.No.41 of 2012 on the file of the Trial Court (which was originally
filed before the District Munsif Court, Perambalur as O.S.No.442 of 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
in respect of certain properties. Since the properties and the parties are
substantially one and the same, joint trial was conducted and a common
Judgment was passed on November 21, 2016, whereby the Partition Suit
was decreed in part and the injunction Suit was dismissed.
4.Feeling aggrieved, the defendants 3 to 5 preferred an Appeal
Suit in A.S.No.02 of 2017 before the Principal District Court, Perambalur.
During the pendency of the Appeal Suit, the Revision Petitioners /
Appellants filed an Interlocutory Application under Order XLI Rule 27
and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of CPC, praying to
receive 9 documents morefully described under the said Application. The
first respondent / plaintiff filed counter affidavit. The First Appellate
Court, after hearing both sides, held that the reason assigned for non-
production of the aforesaid documents before the Trial Court is not
satisfactory and dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed in I.A.No.63
of 2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017.
5.Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated April 30,
2021 passed in I.A.No.63 of 2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017 filed under Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
41 Rule 27 and Section 151 of CPC, the Revision Petitioners have filed
this Civil Revision Petition.
6.Ms.G.Vaishali representing M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates,
Counsel on record for the Revision Petitioners submits that the documents
sought to be received as additional evidence are public documents and are
relevant to decide the Appeal Suit. Further, she submits that the original
documents were stolen and the Revision Petitioners have applied for
certified copies for the same before the concerned authorities and filed
them as additional documents under the aforesaid Interlocutory
Application. The documents sought to be received are public documents
and hence, the contents of the documents cannot be denied by the first
respondent. Further, no prejudice would be caused by allowing the
Interlocutory Application and thereby, receiving the documents as an
additional evidence. Accordingly, she prays to allow the Civil Revision
Petition.
7.Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi for M/s.Usha Ramman, learned
Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the documents
sought to be received are not relevant to decide the issue. Though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
Revision Petitioners have stated that the originals of the same were stolen
and a FIR was registered in this regard, but no FIR copy was filed before
the Court to substantiate the same. The First Appellate Court, considering
the entire facts and circumstances, rightly dismissed the Interlocutory
Application and there is no warrant to interfere with. Accordingly, she
prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
8.This Court has considered both sides submissions and
perused the pleadings, Trial Court's Judgment, petition and affidavit filed
in support of the Interlocutory Application and other connected papers
annexed in the typed-set of papers.
9.Before delving into the merits of the matter, this Court is of
the view that the procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court is not in
consonance with the established principles of law. When an Application
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is filed in an Appeal Suit, the First
Appellate Court shall hear and decide the same, along with the main
Appeal Suit. Without hearing the main matter, the Application filed under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC cannot be decided in isolation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
10.The above view of this Court has been fortified by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India -vs- Ibrahim Uddin, reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 148. It is apposite to extract Paragraph Nos.49, 52 and 53 of
the said judgment, hereunder:
'49.An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be
considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to
find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to
be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved.
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. 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. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the
evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that
some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court.
(Vide: Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 193;
and Natha Singh & Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner,
Taxation (1976) 3 SCC 28.
50. ...
51. ...
52.Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that
application for taking additional evidence on record at an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal,
is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a
stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court
reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to
be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for
any other substantial cause. In case, the application for taking
additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed
prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of
total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such
evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the
judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is
liable to be ignored.
53.In the instant case, the application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC was filed on 6-4-1998 and it was allowed on
28-4-1999 though the first appeal was heard and disposed of on
15-10-1999. In view of law referred to hereinabove, the order
dated 28-4-1999 is just to be ignored.'
11.In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the procedure
adopted by the First Appellate Court is not in consonance with the
provision of law. Moreover, the documents sought to be received are all
pre-suit and public documents. Whether the additional documents sought
to be received as additional evidence are relevant or not is to be
appreciated along with the pleadings. Hence, this Court is inclined to
allow the Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
12.Accordingly, the dismissal Order passed in I.A.No.63 of
2018 in A.S.No.02 of 2017 dated April 30, 2021 by the First Appellate
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate
Court to consider the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.63 of 2018 in
A.S.No.02 of 2017 along with the main Appeal Suit, as per the provisions
of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
13.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
31.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
TK
To
The Principal District Judge
Principal District Court
Perambalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
CRP (PD) NO.2131 OF 2021
31.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 12:15:53 pm )
