JOSEPH PAULRAJ Vs. MAHALAKSHMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC to receive additional document was allowed pending disposal of the appeal.

(2.) Aggrieved by that, the 3rd appellant/3rd defendant has preferred the present revision petition on the ground that the lower appellate Court has entertained the application without application of mind and neglecting the fact that the attempt made by the plaintiff before the Trial Court to amend the pleadings was dismissed. While so, to circumvent and to fill up lacuna, the present application at the appellate stage been filed by introducing new document to support her plea that the suit property is a self-acquired property contra to the original plea that it is their ancestral property. Unmindful of the fact that introduction of new documents will completely change the character of the suit at the appellate stage, the Appellate Court has allowed the application.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no new plea submitted, but the consistent plea which was not properly projected at the trial stage has been sought to be agitated in the appeal through additional documents. In any event, if the Appellate Court considers the necessity and admissibility of the documents sought to be marked, at the time of the disposal of the appeal the same may be considered.