The judgment clarifies that additional evidence may be accepted at the appellate stage if done within procedural norms, particularly in cases involving ongoing litigation and administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2022 Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.241 of 2020 pending on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The suit was originally filed before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla as O.S.No.554 of 2019. Briefly put, the averments in the suit are as under;

The plaintiffs are members of the first defendant Malankara Suriyani Knanaya Samudayam [hereinafter called 'the Samudayam'], an endogamous group in the Syrian Christian Community. The Samudayam is governed by its constitution of the year 1952, as amended in 2003. On 17.12.2019, the plaintiffs got information through social media that an Edict, Kalpana No.EI 82/19 dated 13.12.2019 issued by the Patriarch of Antioch, Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church, dealing with administration of the Samudayam, is being circulated among defendants 3, 4 and 5. The plaintiffs also got information that respondents 3 to 5 were taking hasty steps to implement various directives in the Kalpana, which are contrary to the provisions of the 1952 Constitution. The Kalpana is not only violative of the provisions of the Constitution, but interferes with the authority of the Samudayam as well. The conduct of defendants 3 to 5 in attempting to implement the Kalpana being irregular, illegal and in flagrant violation of the 1952 Constitution, they ought to be restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from implementing Patriarchal Kalpana No.EI 82/19 dated 13.12.2019 in any form whatsoever.

2. Along with the suit, petitioners moved an application for interim injunction as I.A.No.3632 of 2019. The application was allowed by the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla as per Ext.P5 order dated 11.02.2020. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam based on the direction of this Court in Tr.P.(C) No.7 of 2020. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 4 and 5 in the suit, filed CMA No.19/2020 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta. Later, by Ext.P15 judgment in O.P.(C) No.890 of 2020, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was transferred from the District Court, Pathanamthitta to the competent District Court, Kottayam. The appeal was thereafter numbered as CMA No.39 of 2020 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Kottayam. By Ext.P22 judgment, the appeal was allowed, setting aside Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved, this original petition is filed.

3. Assailing Ext.P22 judgment, Senior Counsel K.Jayakumar put forth the following contentions;

(i) The petitioners had completed their arguments in the appeal on 06.11.2020. The respondents completed their arguments on 09.11.2020 and the matter was posted for judgment to 16.11.2020. On 09.11.2020, respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A No.2 of 2020 producing four additional documents. Even though the petitioners sought time for filing objection against production of additional evidence, they were told by the learned Judge that the additional documents will not be looked into for the purpose of deciding the appeal. Contrary to the assurance, the interlocutory application was allowed, the documents accepted and also relied on in the judgment. Apart from the above impropriety, the very acceptance of additional evidence at the appellate stage was also not in accordance with the stipulations in Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. In support of the contention, learned Counsel relied on the decisions inUnion of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another [ (2012)8 SCC 148], Union of India v. K.V.Lakshman and others [ (2016) 13 SCC 124 ], and Corporation of Madras and another v. M.Parthasarathy and others [ (2018) 9 SCC 445 ].

(ii) Ext.P21 additional counter affidavit was filed by the third respondent on 10.11.2020 after arguments were concluded. That affidavit was not only accepted, the impugned judgment even contains verbatim reproduction of certain portions of the affidavit. Thus, the court below relied on pleadings which were not on record while the appeal was heard and regardi