KALIYAMMAL Vs. GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent entered appearance through counsel in the SR stage itself. The submissions made by Mr.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, learned counsel for the respondent are heard.

(2.) The Judgments of the trial Court and lower Appellate Court and the connected records produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused and this Court paid its consideration to the same.

(3.) The plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S.No.399 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Pudukkottai, who emerged successful, suffered a set back before the Appellate Court namely the Sub Court, Pudukkottai in Appeal Suit No.52 of 2008, as the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, chose to set aside the decree granted by the trial Court on 30.01.2008 and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal, after giving an opportunity to the respondent herein/defendant to lead further evidence in the form of a document, the non-production of which, had led the trial Court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even after such remand, the respondent herein/defendant did not produce the said document and once again suffered a decree in the hands of the trial Court, which was passed on 31.03.2011. Once again, the respondent herein/defendant approached the lower Appellate Court by preferring an appeal in Appeal Suit No.122 of 2011. This time during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent herein/defendant preferred an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.334 of 2012 in Appeal Suit No.122 of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to adduce additional documentary evidence.