CRP/1778/2026 of Saetu Vs B.Thirulochana Kumari on 2 November 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 06.1.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the 17th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff to receive additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) came to be allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. The first respondent/plaintiff, along with two others, filed O.S.No.1784 of 2016 on the file of the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioner/defendant seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction directing him to hand over possession of the suit properties. However, the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18.4.2024.

5. Aggrieved by that, the first respondent/plaintiff filed A.S.No.281 of 2024 before the Court below. The arguments were heard in the said appeal and the Court below also reserved judgment. At that stage, the first respondent/plaintiff also filed the said application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to receive six additional documents. However, the Court below suo motu reopened the appeal by order dated 06.1.2026 and on the very same day, allowed the said application by the impugned order. As against it, the petitioner/defendant filed the above revision before this Court.

6. For proper appreciation, the proceedings dated 06.1.2026 in the main appeal is extracted as hereunder: “The appellant filed this appeal to set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.1784/2016. On perusal of records it shows that one Tr.Munirathinam Naidu was adjudged as an insolvent and the properties held by him were ordered to be sold to the occupants of the same by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras. The Official Assignee of High Court, Madras was assigned with the job of issuing demand notice, to receive the sale consideration fixed and for execution of sale deeds pertaining to the property of the said Tr.Munirathinam Naidu. The records show that the Door No.30 consist of an extent of 483 sq.ft., in serial No.56 of the proceedings of the official assignee was allotted to one Tr.N.Durai and similarly in Serial No.136 the Door No.30A consist of 375 sq.ft.. was allotted to one Tmt.Rajeswari. The appellants claiming right as a legal heirs of Tmt.Rajeshwari and the respondents claim right as legal heirs of Tr.Durai, The appellants contend that 300 sq.ft., in Door No.30A was encroached by the respondents and therefore they sought for mandatory injunction. But there are two Door Nos. and both of them are situated adjacent to each other. In the trial court there was no Advocate Commissioner appointed to measure the extent of the properties held by both parties in the above said Door Nos. namely Door No.30 and 30A. This court is of the opinion if the extent of land now possessed by the parties are known it will be convenient for the court to arrive a just decision. Therefore the appeal suit posted for orders today is suo motto reopened and both parties are directed to clarify the court as to the extent of land now being possessed and enjoyed by them. For clarification call on 21.01.2026. IA-1/25 - Orders pronounced. In the result this petition is allowed.”

7. The said application was filed by the first respondent/ plaintiff in order to establish that the Trial Court had given a wrong finding regarding the door number and hence, she wanted the Court below to receive certain additional documents as additional evidence to substantiate that the door number would be 30 that was assigned even as per the report of the Official Assignee.

8. In the above proceedings in the main appeal, the Court below, on 06.1.2026, found that door No.30 consisted of an extent of 483 sq.ft. in Serial No.56 of the proceedings of the Official Assignee and it was allotted in favour of one Mr.N.Durai and in Serial No.136, door No.30A consisted of 375 sq.ft., which was allotted to one Mrs.Rajeswari. The first respondent/plaintiff was claiming the right as the legal heir of the said Mrs.Rajeswari and the petitioner/defendant was claiming their right as the legal heir of the said Mr.N.Durai.

9. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, an extent of 300 sq.ft. in door No.30A was encroached by the petitioner/defendant and therefore, she sought for mandatory injunction by filing the said suit.

10. The Court below wanted to bring in those documents as additional evidence to understand the scope of door Nos.30 and 30A and the Court below was in the process of appointing an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features in order to effectively dispose of the said appeal.

11. The Appellate Court has wider powers under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to take in additional evidence. Considering the nature of dispute that is involved in this case, the Court below thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction. Ultimately, if the additional documents are sought to be brought in and the Court below also wants to appoint an advocate commissioner, those documents will have to be marked through a witness and the petitioner/ defendant must get an opportunity to cross examine the witness and/or make their submissions regarding the report, if any, submitted by the advocate commissioner. The Court below cannot, straight away, act upon the documents based on the report of the advocate commissioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant. If this is clarified, the grievance expressed by the petitioner/defendant will be sufficiently taken care of.

12. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 06.1.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the 17th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is sustained. The Court below is directed to proceed further to record additional evidence in the light of the observations made supra and dispose of the main appeal in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 02-11-2026 To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.1778 of 2026& CMP.No.8073 of 2026 02-11-2026