GURUVAMMAL AND NAGAMMAL Vs. CHINNAMUNIYANDI AND PERIYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of remand made in A.S. No. 9 of 2012 dated 11.09.2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.

(2.) HEARD MR.Subbiah learned counsel for the appellants and MR.C. Jeganathan for MR.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the application filed for receipt of additional documents has to be taken up along with the appeal and if the appellate court after considering the evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that for pronouncing the proper judgment, additional documents are necessary, the appellate court itself can record additional evidence as provided under Order 41 Rule 28 or remand the case to the trial court for recording the evidence and for submitting a report. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court ought to have considered the documents produced by the defendants and if it comes to the conclusion that those documents are relevant, then only, the documents can be allowed to be marked in the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the appellate court in this case did not give any reason for allowing additional evidence and without any valid reason remanded the entire case, which is not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in M. Mani vs. Cuddalore Municipality,, 2011(1) CTC 239, Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil, Alagar Koil etc. vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, etc and others, : 2004(1) L.W. 647, P.V. Chinnaraj vs. V. Nagaraj, : 2013(1) L.W. 353 and Malayalam Plantations Ltd., vs. State of Kerala, : 2011(1) CTC 122.