ANGAMMAL Vs. RAMU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.26 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam and in the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs herein sought for declaration, etc., and the suit was dismissed, against which, the respondents/plaintiffs had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants / respondents herein took out an application in I.A.No.148 of 2014 for reception of documents and the said application was allowed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the documents specified by the appellants / respondent herein are essential to decide the case and challenging the same, the revision petitioners/respondents are before this Court.

(2.) It is the main case of the revision petitioners that the order of the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the absence of disclosure of averments in the Appeal grounds, relating to the documents to be received and therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to introduce a new case through additional evidence. The appellants also did not specify reasons as to why those documents were not marked before the Trial Court and as such, the permission given by the Court for adducing additional evidence, that too, in an appeal stage is unheard of.

(3.) The revision petitioners state that the main intention of the appellants is to drag on the proceedings and they, having not deposed anything about the documents during trial, have now been asking for marking of the documents, which is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. There is no pleadings raised with respect to the subject documents in the appeal and as such, seeking permission to mark the documents is against the provisions of law.