1. The respondent entered appearance through counsel in the SR stage itself. The submissions made by Mr. N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. N.Krishnaveni, learned counsel for the respondent are heard.

2. The Judgments of the trial Court and lower Appellate Court and the connected records produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused and this Court paid its consideration to the same.

3. The plaintiff in the Original Suit in O.S.No.399 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Pudukkottai, who emerged successful, suffered a set back before the Appellate Court namely the Sub Court, Pudukkottai in Appeal Suit No.52 of 2008, as the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, chose to set aside the decree granted by the trial Court on 30.01.2008 and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh disposal, after giving an opportunity to the respondent herein/defendant to lead further evidence in the form of a document, the non-production of which, had led the trial Court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even after such remand, the respondent herein/defendant did not produce the said document and once again suffered a decree in the hands of the trial Court, which was passed on 31.03.2011. Once again, the respondent herein/defendant approached the lower Appellate Court by preferring an appeal in Appeal Suit No.122 of 2011. This time during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent herein/defendant preferred an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.334 of 2012 in Appeal Suit No.122 of 2011 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to adduce additional documentary evidence.

4. The learned lower Appellate Judge, who adopted the procedure on the expected lines by hearing the application along with the appeal on merits, deviated from the path by not following the procedure for recording additional evidence as contemplated under Rule 28 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The result/consequence is the reversal of the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant herein/plaintiff.

5. As such, the appellant herein/plaintiff is forced to knock at the doors of this Court with the present Second Appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of Second Appeal. Though a number of questions have been formulated and incorporated in the grounds of memorandum of Second Appeal as substantial questions of law that have arisen in the Second Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following questions alone as the substantial questions of law based on which he would seek a Judgment from this Court. They are:-

“(i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is not wrong in law in allowing the application in I.A.No.334 of 2012 in A.S.No.122 of 2011 without considering the scope of Rule 27(1)(aa) and without relying on sub-rule (b)?

(ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in not following the procedure contemplated under Order 28 of Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recording the additional evidence and by simply marking the additional documents produced by the respondent herein/defendant and reading them into evidence?”

6. Upon considering the submissions made on both sides and after perusing the copies of the Judgments of the Courts below and the relevant materials produced by the parties in the form of typed-set of papers, this Court is satisfied that the above said two substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration in this Second Appeal.

7. Before dealing with the first substantial question of law, it shall be convenient to deal with the second substantial question of law, to highlight the erroneous procedure adopted by the lower Appellate Court.

8. When the Appellate Court arrives at a conclusion that a party is to be permitted to adduce additional evidence, then automatically Rule 28 under Order