IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to procedural rules in appellate proceedings is essential, and failure to provide an opportunity for rebuttal to additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

Prayer in S.A.No.193 of 2022 : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.5 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore District dated 23.11.2021 by reversing the judgment and decree in part passed in O.S.No.85 of 2015 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Walajapet, Vellore District and set aside the same.

Prayer in S.A.No.499 of 2022 : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.14 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Ranipet, Vellore District dated 23.11.2021 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2015 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajapet, Vellore District and set aside the same.

These second appeals arise out of a single suit O.S.No.85 of 2015 which has been filed by the appellant for the following reliefs:

a) To declare that the plaintiff is Power Agent as per the Power of Attorney dated 1.3.2000 registered as document No.51 of 2000 on the file of S.R.O. Walaja in respect of the suit schedule properties;

b) To declare that the cancellation of the Power deed executed by Amirthammal, and the Defendants 1 to 7 and 9 dated 16.4.2003 under Document No.98 IV of 2003 on the file of S.R.O. Walaja and subsequent sale deed executed by the Narayana Pillai and Defendants 1 to 5 and 7 and 9 in favour of the 6th defendant registered as document No. 5002 of 2010 dated 13.7.2010 on the file of S.R.O. are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff;

c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 and 9 or their men or their agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties more fully described in the schedule hereunder;

2. Since the scope of these second appeals lies in a very narrow campus, the pleadings are not extracted in detail. Suffice it to state that the claim of the plaintiff/Appellant was refuted by the first Respondent herein. During trial, it was only the plaintiff who entered the box and marked Exs.A1 to A3. He had also examined three witnesses on his side. On the side of the defendants, two witnesses were examined, namely, the 6th defendant and the 2nd defendant. However, the defendants had not filed any documents. The registered Will dated 01.03.2000 was marked as Ex.C1.

3. The suit was decreed for the declaratory relief but was dismissed with reference to the decree for possession. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellant herein/plaintiff had filed A.S.No.14 of 2019 and the defendants had preferred A.S.No.5 of 2019. In the appellate Court, the defendants had filed I.A.No.13 of 2020 for receiving the additional documents before the trial Court. The only reason given for receiving the additional documents was that they had inadvertently not filed the documents before the trial court. The said application was resisted by the appellant herein. However, it appears that on the very same day when common judgment was pronounced in the Appeal, the learned Judge had allowed the interlocutory application. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet had not only ordered the application filed for permission to file additional documents but has also proceeded to mark the documents as Exs.B1 to B11 without even examining witnesses to mark the documents and permitting the appellant/plaintiff to cross examine the witnesses. Such a procedure adopted by the learned Judge runs contrary to the established procedures. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellant is before this Court.

4. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these second appeals is “whether the lower appellate Court was correct in law in allowing I.A.No.13 of 2020 on the very same day as the judgment and decree and markin