Amala vs Kulasamuthu - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 1069

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Amala – Appellant
Versus
Kulasamuthu – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mrs.Indira
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Ganagasapapathy

Table of Content
1. appeal challenges reversal using unpleaded additional loan documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. no rebuttal opportunity violates order 41 rule 28 cpc. (Para 6)
3. additional evidence incidental to existing loan defense plea. (Para 7)
4. admission proper but rules 28-29 require rebuttal opportunity. (Para 8 , 9)
5. remit for cross-examination and fresh appellate disposal. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 2022, being a suit for specific performance, is the appellant, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first appellate Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff and Mr.N.Ganagasapapathy, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant.

4. The second appeal was admitted on 09.04.2026 on the following substantial question of law:

“ I. Whether the additional documents marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B10, produced before the first appellate Court in the absence of any pleadings relating to them, would entitle the first appellate Court to rely upon those documents and reverse the finding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASP.B. BALAJI, JAmala – AppellantVersusKulasamuthu – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Amala – Appellant
Versus
Kulasamuthu – Respondent