BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/03/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI Periyasamy ... Petitioners Vs

1. Vedamuthu

2.Valli

3. Lakshmi

4.Indirani

5.Valarmathi

6.Malaichamy ... Respondents PRAYER :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 22.11.2021 made in A.S.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai confirming the Judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 made in O.S.No. 49 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.

For appellant : Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan For respondents 1 to 6 : No appearance JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2021 made in A.S.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2017 made in O.S.No.49 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.

2. Heard Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. Though several substantial questions of law have been suggested, in view of the non-consideration of the additional documents received under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, it would suffice to frame the following substantial question of law alone in favour of the appellant:

“Whether the Court of first appeal has committed a serious mistake in not following the procedure envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure after allowing the interlocutory application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and after having received a document as additional evidence, without proceeding further by affording opportunity to both parties to prove the document in the manner known to law?”

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the aggrieved plaintiff is the appellant herein, having been unsuccessful not only before the trial Court, but also before the first appellate Court. The primeordial submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, is that though the first appellate Court had allowed the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Court below has not even adverted its attention to the additional documents that were sought to be filed, despite the appellate Court having assigned exhibit numbers to those additional documents.

5. On going through the judgment of the first appellate Court, I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. Having allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the first appellate Court was duty-bound to discuss the effect of the additional documents in the appeal, viz., Ex.A4. However, the discussion in this regard is found wanting and the findings rendered are unsatisfactory. Even in this Second Appeal, none of the respondents have chosen to appear either in person or through counsel despite service of notice. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for remitting the matter to the first appellate Court for a fresh decision, after giving a fair opportunity to both the appellant as well as the respondents.

6. The matter is remitted to the first appellate Court to rehear the first appeal on merits, after giving a fair opportunity to both parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, including evidence pertaining to the additional documents that have been received under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, before the first appellate Court, if the parties choose to lead evidence. The first appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of. No costs.

09.03.2026 trp Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes / no To

1. Subordinate Judge, Manamadurai

2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi.

P.B. BALAJI, J., trp

09.03.2026