Point of Law: Even when the first two grounds under Order XLI Rule 27 are not satisfied, the court can always admit additional evidence which it may require to pronounce judgment or for any other sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

1. The Travancore Devaswom Board (‘the TDB’ for short), the plaintiff in O.S. No. 274/2000 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur, is the appellant. The respondent, defendant in the suit, was a Sub Group Officer of Naranam Sub Group of the TDB during the period 1994-95. The plaintiff instituted the Original Suit for realising a sum of Rs. 84,953.08/- the amount allegedly misappropriated by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, a crime was registered against the defendant by the Police as Crime No. 64/1997 of Eloor Police Station. Pursuant to the enquiry made against the defendant by the competent authority of the plaintiff, the defendant was dismissed from service with effect from 15.04.1998.

2. The defendant resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant also disputed the alleged liability.

3. During the trial, PW-1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defendant.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaint claim is barred by limitation. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before the Additional District Court, North Paravur in A.S. No. 188/2004. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is before this Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. On 13.03.2007, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the finding of the courts below that the suit is barred by time is sustainable in view of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1962 as plaintiff is the Devaswom Board in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Achuthan Pillai vs. State of Kerala, 1970 KLT 838.

2. Whether first appellate court was justified in dismissing I.A. No. 535/2004 filed under Rule 27 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, when that document is necessary to pronounce a better judgment.”

6. Heard Shri G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

7. The Travancore Devaswom Board was constituted under Chapter II of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 for administration, supervision and control of the religious institutions in the Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds.

8. The case of the plaintiff, the TDB, is that the defendant who was employed as a Sub Group Officer had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 84,953.08/-. Ext.A1 notice dated 31.03.1995 was caused to be issued to the defendant by the plaintiff alleging dishonest misappropriation of funds and directing to offer his explanations. By way of Ext.A2 notice, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misappropriated the plaint amount, and he was required to pay the amount to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, when the defendant did not comply with the directions in Ext.A2 notice, the Original Suit was instituted on 27.03.2000. The Trial Court held that the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant has misappropriated the Devaswom funds, as alleged.

9. In the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 535/2004 and sought admission of a representation submitted by the defendant on 10.10.2001 before the Board wherein he had admitted the alleged misappropriation. The First Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation. The Court also dismissed I.A. No. 535/2004 on the ground that the additional document sought to be admitted in evidence was made available after the expiry of the period of limitation.

10. The question that falls for consideration is whether the claim is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 10 of the Limitation Act to contend that the defendant retained possession of the property that belongs to the deity, a perpetual minor, as a Trustee and in a fi