O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein is T.R.Govindan, who is 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.4918 of 2015 on the file of XIV Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for the relief of declaration declaring General Power of Attorney dated 11.11.2014 said to be executed by him in the name of 1st defendant as null and void and other consequential relief prayed to declare the sale deed dated 20.11.2014, which was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant as null and void.

2. In the said suit, both the defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. The additional written statement also filed by the defendants, in which they have mentioned about the second appeal in S.A.No. 620 of 2007 stating that the suit property is pending for adjudication in that appeal and the plaintiff is not having any right over the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an Interlocutary Application in I.A.No. 3345 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. to receive additional document on the side of petitioner. However, in respect of title with respect to the suit property was challenged by filing Second Appeal in S.A.No.620 of 2007 and the same was disposed of on 22.04.2021, thereby, the suit in O.S.No.80 of 2004, which was filed by one Mohanamibika was dismissed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/plaintiff wanted to produce the said judgment and decree of second appeal in the suit as additional document. The said application was strongly objected by the 2nd defendant stating that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not raised any pleading in the plaint, without which, he is not entitled to mark the same. So, without pleading, the copy of judgment and decree cannot be received as additional document. On considering both sides, the trial court allowed the application holding that the case is posted for marking of documents by P.W.1. At this stage, the plaintiff filed the said application and prayed to mark the judgment and decree passed in the suit declaring title with respect to the suit property is just and necessary and if at all, any objection on the side of defendants, they can very well raise their objections at the time of marking the said document and subject to proof and relevancy, the document is directed to be received by allowing the said application. Challenging the said order, the 1st defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition stating that the learned judge failed to take note of the fact that though the plaintiff filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. to receive additional document, only document related to the averments made in the plaint alone can be marked and the plaintiff can be permitted to mark the document, which was not shown in the list of documents, as such is erroneous one, besides, there is no pleading in the plaint with regard to the said suit proceedings. Hence, the order passed by the court below is arbitrary and unsustainable and prayed to set aside the same. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities :-

I. This Court by an order dated 02.02.2010 in the case of Harkesh Singh and others vs. Ved Raj, has held as follows:-

"Case Note :

Civil – Additional affidavit – Dismissal of application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for taking additional affidavit on record – Application dismissed – Held, the petitioners failed to file the documents along with the written statement – Sole ground stated by the petitioners was that due to inadvertence they did not file the documents – Inadvertence no ground for allowing an application for production of documents at the stage of evidence – Hence, petition dismissed."

II. This Court in its judgment reported in 2005 (10) CTCOL 514, in the case of Sornam, R. Gowthaman and R.Vennila vs. P.N.Thevachiammal, has held as follows:-

"10. The additional written statement was filed on

23.01.2002. The additional issues were framed on 16.12.2003. In the