LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-905

BALAMANI Vs. LEBANA SUNDARAM PILLAI

Decided On July 13, 2018
BALAMANI Appellant
V/S
Lebana Sundaram Pillai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District and in the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner herein sought for declaration, permanent injunction, etc., and the suit was decreed in her favour, against which, the respondent herein had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2013. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant / respondent herein took out two applications in I.A.Nos.78 and 194 of 2013 in A.S.No.16 of 2013 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli for reception of documents and recalling D.W.1 for marking the documents respectively. Those applications were allowed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that the documents specified by the appellant / respondent herein are essential to decide the case and challenging the same, the respondent / petitioner herein is before this Court.

(2.) It is the main case of the revision petitioner that the orders of the First Appellate Court are 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 appellant 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 petitioner states that the main intention of the appellant is to drag on the proceedings and he, having not deposed anything about the documents during trial, has 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 document in the appeal and as such, seeking permission to recall D.W.1 and mark the documents is against the provisions of law. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of these civil revision petitions.