The First Appellate Court erred in not considering additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, necessitating the restoration of appeals for proper review.

J U D G M E N T

These appeals arises out of two suits, O.S No.701 of 1997, wherein the appellant in R.S.A No.1086/2011 is the plaintiff and O.S No.62/1998, wherein the appellants in R.S.A No.1218/2011 are the defendants. The appellant in R.S.A No.1086/2011 claims title over 3.4 cents in Re-Survey No.63/2 of Chengalayi Amsom, under two documents, one is Marupat dated 03.01.1964 and another is one gift deed dated 03.03.1980. Based on these documents, the appellant in R.S.A No.1086/2011 also claims that a purchase certificate dated 03.10.1995 was issued by the Land Tribunal No.2, Payyannur. The respondents in R.S.A No.1086/2011 are the title owners of the property in the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property. When an attempt was made by the defendants to trespass into the property, the appellant/ plaintiff filed O.S No.701/1997 and thereafter, the 3rd defendant in O.S No.701/1997 filed O.S No.62/1998, against the appellant / plaintiff seeking injunction as well as damages. The defendants in O.S No.701/1997 traced their title through a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1971, based on which a purchase certificate dated 30.11.1976 was issued for an extent of 75 cents in the very same survey number. The trial court dismissed both the suits. Aggrieved, both the plaintiffs filed appeals and the appeal preferred by the appellant was numbered as A.S No.48/2002 and the appeal preferred by the respondents was numbered as A.S No.52/2002. At the appellate stage, the appellant filed I.A No.1395/2010 in A.S No.48/2002 seeking to produce an order dated 07.08.2009 in S.M No.327/1994, wherein the Land Tribunal had affirmed the purchase certificate earlier issued. The document was necessitated, because according to the appellant, the 3^rd defendant/ plainti the O.S No.62/1998, had challenged the purchase certificate dated 03.10.1995 before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority had remanded the matter back to the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal had re-affirmed the issuance of the purchase certificate. However, the appellate Court did not refer to the application nor passed any orders therein. Without referring to the application, the First Appellate Court proceeded to consider the appeals on merit and dismissed A.S No.48/2002, allowed A.S No.52/2002, and decreed O.S No.62/1998. Hence the these appeals.

2. On 16.12.2025, this Court admitted these appeals on the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal. However, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals, this Court deems it appropriate to re-frame the substantial questions of law as follows:-

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in disposing the appeal without considering the documents produced by the appellant in R.S.A No.1086/2011 along with I.A No.1395/2010, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?

3. Heard Shri.Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in R.S.A No.1086/2011 and 1^st appellant in R.S.A No.1218/2011 and Shri.P.S.Binu, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in R.S.A No.1086/2011 and the sole respondent in R.S.A No.1218/2011.

4. On considering the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court is satisfied that a procedural irregularity occurred while considering the appeal by the First Appellate Court. Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) enables the parties to produce additional documents at the stage of appeal. For the reasons stated under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of CPC, it is upto