ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition :-

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 2351 of 2005 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit was filed originally by the 1st respondent against the petitioners as well as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai. In the suit, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board was made as the 4th defendant pursuant to the order made by this Court in CRP No.2520 of 2009.

3. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent seeking for a direction to direct the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The first respondent claimed that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as she has paid the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as per the allotment order issued by them in her favour. The petitioners contested the said suit by filing a written statement. The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent after contest by the petitioners. The first petitioner is the daughter of the first respondent and the second petitioner is her son-in-law. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2012 passed in favour of the first respondent in O.S. No.2351 of 2005, the petitioners filed an appeal before the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S. No.335 of 2012. Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioners filed CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission of the lower appellate Court to receive the additional documents viz., a) Registered document No.5099 of 2007 (b) Document No.5100 of 2007 and (c) copy of the plaint filed by the 1st respondent in the Sub Court, Madurantakam and also sought for permission to examine the second petitioner and give evidence before the Court.

4. A counter affidavit was also filed by the first respondent in CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012, wherein, she has reiterated that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has also stated that the petitioners have filed the appeal only with the malicious motive to protract the proceedings and to continue to occupy the suit schedule property in question viz., an extent of 80 sq. ft of land. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioners do not have any right whatsoever in respect of the said 80 sq. ft. of land. Further, she has stated that since the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.1094 of 2002 and O.S. No.3502 of 2002, which were filed by the petitioners and the first respondent respectively have become final, the findings in those suits are binding on the petitioners and now the petitioners cannot re-agitate the same in the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No.2351 of 2005, which is the subject matter of the appeal in A.S. No.335 of 2012. The first respondent / plaintiff has also pleaded in her counter affidavit that the petitioners have got no right to invoke Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, as the documents, which they want to be marked, are irrelevant documents.

5. By order dated 21.04.2014, the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissed CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012. Aggrieved by the dismissal of CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard Mr. T. Velumani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Sadasivam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. B.S. Sundaramoorthi, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Despite service of notice on the second respondent, and their name having been printed in the cause list, no one has entered appearance on the side of the second respondent.

7. The learned counsel