LexA. ANDISAMY CHETTIAR versus A. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • B (2015] 14 S.C.R. 190 A. ANDISAMY CHETTIAR v. A. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR (Civil Appeal No. 14055 of 2015) DECEMBER 08, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XL/, r 27, s. 115 - c Revisional power - Exercise of - Production of additional evidence in appellate court- On facts, suit for injunction filed by appellant- Dismissal by trial court-Apipeal there against before the first appellate court- During pendency, application by appellant tor additional evidence seeking scientific o examination of the document - Application allowed by the first appellate court - Defendant challenging the same by filing revision before 1he High Court and the same was allowed- On appeal, held: It is clear from sub-rule (1) of r. 27 that the parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence E whether oral or documentary in the appellate court, but for the three situations mentioned therein - Parties are not allowed to fill the lacunae at the appellate stage - On facts, no application was moved before the trial court seeking scientific examination of the document, nor can it be said F that the appellant with due diligence could not have moved such an application to get proved the documents relied upqn by him - When appeal was pending before the lower appellate court, the High Court, in revision, should not have interfered in the matter of requirement of additional evidence - Thus, G order passed by the High, Court set aside - Howeve'r, the first appellate court directed to decide the application tor additional evidence afresh. K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc. 2007 (10) SCR H 872: (2007) 14 SCC 257; North Eastern Railway 190 A.ANDISAMY.CHETTIAR v. A. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR Admn. v. Bhagwan Oas2008 (6) SCR 416: (2008) 8 SCC 511; N. Kama/am (dead) and another v. Ayyasamy and another 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 272 : (2001) 7 SCC 503; UniOn of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another 2012 (8) SCR 35 : (2012) 8 SCC 148; Mahavir Singh and others v. Naresh Chandra and Another2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 454 : (2001) 1 SCC 309; Gurdev Singh and others v. Mehnga Ram and Another 1997· (2) Suppl. SCR 693: (1997) 6 sec 507- referred to. .. Case Law Reference 2007 (10)SCR 872 referred to Para 13 2008 (6) SCR 416 referred to Para 14 : 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 272 referred to Para 15 2012 (8) SCR 35 referred to Para 16 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 454 referred to Para 18 . 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 693 referred to Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14055 of 2015. 191 A B c D E From the Judgment ar:id Orderdated.07.11.2014 of the F Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition (PD) (MD) No. 1787 of 2008. S. Nanda Kumar, Parivesh Singh, M. Soundarasaran Kumar, P. Srinivasan, Ranjeet Singh, Naresh Kumar for the G. Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 07 .11.2014, passed by the High Court of H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 14 S.C.R. A Judicature at Madras, Bench Madurai, in Civil Revision Petition (PD) (MD) No. 1787 of 2008 whereby the revision was allowed, and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by Subordinate Judge, Vlrudhunagar, on I.A. No. 3 of 2008 (in A.S. No. 55 of 2007), is B set aside. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the C appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar: for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was owned D by one Gopalsamy Pillai. On 21.08.1963 Gopalsamy Pillai transferred the property by executing a sale deed in favour of one Lakshmiammal. Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26.12.1968. Plaintiff's father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from E Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed F property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit. Plaintiff Andisa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.