Allowed¶38

Mohala v. Veeraraghavan

Madras HC27 Feb 2026CRP/499/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional evidence Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to be considered along with main appeal, not separately; Article 227 Constitution of India revision; Madras High Court; CRP No.499 of 2026; I.A.No.42 of 2019 in A.S.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.424 of 2004; dismissal order dated 02.12.2025 set aside; remand to First Appellate Court; Ex.A16 to Ex.A19 from earlier litigation O.S.No.119 of 1956; no costs; connected CMP No.2725 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

CRP No.499 of 2026 allowed; impugned dismissal order set aside; matter remanded to the First Appellate Court with direction to consider I.A.No.42 of 2019 (reception of additional evidence) along with the main appeal; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.2725 of 2026) closed. ¶38

Mohala Vs Veeraraghavan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the first appellate court erred in considering and dismissing the application (I.A.No.42 of 2019) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for reception of additional evidence separately, before taking up the main first appeal A.S.No.20 of 2017 for final disposal.

¶37

Court's answer

It is settled law that a petition to receive additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC shall be considered by the first appellate court along with the main appeal.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In the case on hand, the first appellate court committed an error in considering the additional-evidence application separately before taking up the first appeal for final disposal; the procedure followed was therefore incorrect and the impugned dismissal order was set aside.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), in a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that a petition to receive additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered by the first appellate court along with the main appeal, and not separately before the appeal is taken up for final disposal. Finding that the First Appellate Court had erred by deciding I.A.No.42 of 2019 (an application by the plaintiffs/appellants in A.S.No.20 of 2017, arising out of O.S.No.424 of 2004, to produce documents relating to earlier litigation in O.S.No.119 of 1956, parts of which already stood marked as Ex.A16 to Ex.A19) separately and dismissing it, the Court set aside the order dated 02.12.2025, allowed the CRP, and remanded the application to the First Appellate Court for consideration along with the main appeal, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

¶1

CRP No.499 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 499 of 2026

¶7

and CMP No.2725 of 2026

¶8

Mohala,

¶9

W/o.Bhaskar Jaisingh, No.2, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Link Road, Panruti, Panruti Taluk.

¶10

Chitra, D/o.Rajaram Singh, No.2, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Link Road, Panruti, Panruti Taluk.

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

Veeraraghavan, S/o.Muthal Chettiar, No.8, 2^nd Street, Police Line, Panruti, Panruti Taluk.

¶14

M.Siva, S/o.Manicka Mudhaliyar, No.6/4, Muthiah Nagar, Kokkupalayam Road, Thattanchavadi, Panruti, Panruti Taluk.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

CRP No.499 of 2026

¶18

Rani,

¶19

Rani, W/o.Siva, No.6/4, Muthiah Nagar, Kokkupalayam Road, Thattanchavadi, Panruti, Panruti Taluk.

¶20

..Respondent(s)

¶21

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to aside the Order dated 02.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.42 of 2019 in AS.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.424/2004, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Panruti.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Munusami For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.Palanikumar for R2 and R3 for M/s.P.Kannan kumar

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the order

¶25

passed by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.42 of 2019, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to receive additional documents.

¶26

The petitioners herein/plaintiffs, who are all the appellants in the

¶27

main first appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2017, filed a suit in O.S.No.424 of 2004 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from putting up construction in the suit B

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRP No.499 of 2026

¶31

schedule property and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction already put up by the defendants in the suit wall in suit B schedule property. They also sought for declaration and recovery of vacant possession in respect of suit C Schedule property. The suit filed by them was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the first appeal. Pending first appeal, the petitioners filed the instant application seeking to receive additional evidence and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

¶32

The petitioners, now, want to produce certain documents relating to the earlier litigation and the documents pressed into service in the earlier litigation. In fact, Judgment, Decree, Advocate Commissioner’s Report and plan in the earlier litigation in O.S.No.119 of 1956 had been marked as Ex.A16 to Ex.A19 before the Trial Court in O.S.No.424 of 2004.

¶33

It is settled law that a petition to receive additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC shall be considered by the first appellate

¶34

__________ Page3 of 5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

CRP No.499 of 2026

¶37

court along with the main appeal. However, in the case on hand, the first appellate court committed an error in considering the said application separately, before taking up the first appeal for final disposal. Therefore, the procedure followed by the first appellate court is not correct and hence, the impugned dismissal order passed by the first appellate court is set aside.

¶38

Accordingly, CRP No.499 of 2026 stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court is directed to consider I.A.No.42 of 2019 filed by the petitioners to receive additional evidence along with the main appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

27.02.2026

¶40

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Lpp

¶41

¶42

The Subordinate Judge, Panruti.

¶43

__________ Page4 of 5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45