JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Order and Decree made in I.A.No.48 of 2013 in A.S.No.31 of 2012, dated 03.02.2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition No.1260 of 2016 is filed challenging the Order and Decree dated 03.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.48 of 2013 in A.S.No.31 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

2. The Petitioner is the Appellant in A.S.No.31 of 2012. The Suit O.S.No.452 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam. The said Suit O.S.No.452 of 2005 was decreed on 14.08.2012 by the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam. Hence, challenging the said decree passed in O.S.No.452 of 2005 the Petitioner/Appellant filed the subject matter Appeal Suit A.S.No.31 of 2012.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner/Appellant filed I.A.No.48 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code to receive the schedule document and the said schedule document is the Patta dated 07.09.2001 issued by the Tahsildar, Gudiyattam in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant. He also submitted that, the Petitioner/Appellant has been residing in the 2nd item of the scheduled property for the past 20 years and to that effect, the Government has issued Patta on his favour on 07.09.2001. Since, the original Patta has been misplaced, it could not filed before the Trial Court. Then, subsequently, the original Patta was traced out and the Petitioner/Appellant has come forward with this Petition I.A.No.48 of 2013 in A.S.No.31 of 2012 to receive the said document.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, the Petitioner/Appellant has filed the Suit for partition and separate possession to divide the Suit property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the Petitioner/Appellant in O.S.No.452 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam and the said Suit was dismissed on merits observing that the property purchased by the Defendant under Ex.B2 is separate and self acquired property of the Respondent/Defendant.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of S.N.Hasan Abubucker vs. Kottikulam St Mohideen Pallivasal Therkku Mohindeen Pallivasal, Nirvagi Mutheru Committee through its secretary M.S.Buhari and another reported in 2000 (III) CTC 193, dated 11.02.2000. For better appreciation the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“15. Therefore, in the present case, the nature of the additional evidence placed before the Court is such that receiving them would be in the interest of justice to clear up the obscure areas of evidence and it would be undoubtedly a ground on which the appellate Court ought to have permitted reception of such evidence instead of having adopted a hyper-technical approach. The appellate Court having commented and rejected Ex.B.I, rental receipt as being appellate Court ought to have entertained the said additional evidence instead of rejecting it in the same breath.

16. Therefore, on an overall consideration I am inclined to feel that the appeal requires to be remanded not only for proper appreciation of evidence, but also to enable both the parties to adduce additional evidence of which purpose the appellate Court shall also permit the examination of witnesses. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of the mutual contentions of the basis of which the lower appellate Court would dispose of the appeal on merits. C.M.P.No.3835 of 1994 is closed with liberty to the appellant to file documents in evidence before the appellate Court subject to their relevancy and admissibility. The originals of the documents filed by the appellant shall be returned to the counsel for the appellant.

17. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed and remanded to the lower appellant Court for disposal in