2018 INSC 0520
           REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3033 OF 2006
The Corporation of Madras & Anr.     ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M. Parthasarathy & Ors.               …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No.8185 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 21796 of 2018)
(D.No.15579/2017)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave   granted   in   S.L.P.(c)
No………...D.No.15579/2017).
2) These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final
judgment   and   order   dated   09.10.2002   passed   by
1

the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal Nos.126
to  129 of  1997 and  Writ  Petition  No.13097 of  1993
whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   second
appeals   filed   by   the   appellants   herein   and   allowed
the writ petition filed by the respondents herein.
3) In order to appreciate the issue arising in these
appeals,   few   relevant   facts   need   to   be   mentioned
hereinbelow.
4) The appellants are the defendants whereas the
respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suits out of
which these appeals arise.
5) The dispute relates to a land measuring about
3600   sq.   ft.   in   Block   No.15,   Aminjikarai   Village,
Pulla   Reddy   Avenue,   Chennai   (hereinafter   referred
to as the “suit land”).
6) The   respondents   claiming   to   be   the   owners   of
the   suit   land   filed   four   civil   suits   bearing   O.S.
Nos.2207 of 1992, 2345 of 1992, 2346 of 1992 and
2

2347 of 1992 against the appellants (defendants) in
the   City   Civil   Court   at   Chennai   for   permanent
injunction. 
7) The   appellants   on   being   served   denied   the
claims   set   up   by   the   respondents   by   filing   written
statement.  Since all the four suits were between the
same parties and relate to one piece of land though
part   of   different   four   sale   deeds   and   further   there
was   no   multiplicity   of   causes   of   action,   the   Trial
Judge clubbed all the four suits for their analogous
disposal.   The   Trial   Court   accordingly   framed
common   issues   on   the   basis   of   the   pleadings.
Parties   adduced   their   common   evidence.     The   Trial
Court,   by   a   common   judgment/decree   dated
24.09.1993, dismissed all the four suits filed by the
respondents with costs.
8) The   plaintiffs   (respondents   herein)   felt
aggrieved   filed   first   appeals   being   A.S.   Nos.338   to
3

341   of   1993   in   the   Court   of   8 th
    Additional   District
Judge,   Chennai.   In   the   appeals,   the   plaintiffs   filed
an   application   under   Order   41   Rule   27   of   the   Civil
Procedure   Code,   1908   (for   short   “the   Code”)   and
sought permission to adduce additional evidence in
support of their case (CMP  No.1559/93).
9) By   judgment/decree   dated   17.12.1993,   the
Additional   District   Judge   allowed   the   application
filed   under   Order   41   Rule   27   of   the   Code   thereby
permitting   the   plaintiffs   (appellants   before   the   first
Appellate Court) to file the additional evidence.  The
Appellate   Court   then   exhibited   the   additional
evidence as    Exs. P­16 to P­20  and placing reliance
on the additional evidence tendered by the plaintiffs
for the first time at the appellate stage,   allowed the
appeals,   set   aside   the   judgment   and   decree   of   the
Trial Court and   decreed all the four civil suits filed
by the respondents against the appellants.
4

10) The   defendants   (appellants   herein)   felt
aggrieved   and   filed   second   appeals   in   the   High
Court.   The plaintiffs (respondents herein) also filed
a   writ   petition   in   the   High   Court   in   relation   to   the
land in question.   By impugned judgment, the High
Court   dismissed   the   second   appeals   filed   by   the
defendants (appellants herein) and  allowed the writ
petition   filed   by   the   respondents   herein   as   a
consequence   of   dismissal   of   the   appellants’   second
appeals   and   affirmed   the   judgment/decree   passed
by the   first Appellate Court. It is against this order
of the High Court, the defendants felt aggrieved and
filed   the   present   appeals   by   way   of   special   leave   in
this Court.
11) Heard   Mr.   R.   Basant,   learned   senior   counsel
for   the   appellants   and   Ms.   Aruna   Prakash,   learned
counsel for the respondents.
5

12) Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties   and   on   perusal   of   the   written   submissions
filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, we
are   of   the   considered   view   that   these   appeals
deserve   to   be   allowed   in   part   on   a   short   ground   as
indicated  infra .
13) It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   the   respondents
(plaintiffs)   had   filed   an   application   under   Order   41
Rule 27 of the Code in their first appeals before the
first   Appellate   Court   (CMP   No.1559/93)   praying
therein   for   production   of   additional   evidence   in
appeals.   It   is   also   an   admitted   fact   that   this
application was allowed and the additional evidence
was   not   only   taken   on   record   but   also   relied   on   by
the   Appellate   Court   as     Exs.P­16   to   P­20   for
allowing the appeals filed by the respondents which,
in   consequence,   resulted   in   decreeing   all   the   four
civil suits.
6

14) In   our   considered   opinion,   the   first   Appellate
Court   committed   two   jurisdictional   errors   in
allowing the appeals. 
15) First,   it took into consideration the additional
piece   of   evidence   while   deciding   the   appeals   on
merits   without   affording   any   opportunity   to   the
appellants herein (who were respondents in the first
appeals) to file any rebuttal evidence to counter the
additional   evidence   adduced   by   the   respondents
(appellants   before   the   first   Appellate   Court).   This
caused   prejudice   to   the   appellants   herein   because
they   suffered   the   adverse   order   from   the   Appellate
Court   on   the   basis   of   additional   evidence   adduced
by   the   respondents   for   the   first   time   in   appeal
against   them.   (See   Land   Acquisition   Officer,   City
Improvement   Trust   Board   vs.   H.   Narayanaiah   &
Ors. ,   (1976)   4   SCC   9,   Shalimar   Chemical   Works
Ltd.   vs.   Surendra   Oil   &   Dal   Mills   (Refineries)   &
7

Ors. , (2010) 8 SCC 423 and  Akhilesh Singh vs. Lal
Babu Singh & Ors. , (2018) 4 SCC 759).
16) Second   error   was   of   a   procedure   which   the
first   Appellate   Court   failed   to   resort   in   disposing   of
the   appeals.   This   also   involved   a   question   of
jurisdiction.  
17) Having allowed the CMP No.1559/1993 and, in
our   opinion   rightly,   the   first   Appellate   Court   had
two   options,   first   it   could   have   either   set   aside   the
entire judgment/decree of the Trial Court by taking
recourse to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23­A of
the Code and remanded the case to the Trial Court
for re­trial in the suits so as to enable the parties to
adduce   oral   evidence   to   prove   the   additional
evidence   in   accordance   with   law   or   second,   it   had
an option to invoke powers under Order 41 Rule 25
of   the   Code   by   retaining   the   appeals   to   itself   and
remitting the case to the Trial Court for limited trial
8

on   particular issues arising in the case in the light
of   additional   evidence   which   was   taken   on   record
and   invite   findings   of   the   Trial   Court   on   such
limited issues to  enable the  first  Appellate  Court to
decide the appeals on merits. 
18) The  first Appellate  Court  failed to  take note of
both the above mentioned provisions and proceeded
to allow it wrongly. 
19) Due   to   these   two   jurisdictional   errors
committed   by   the   first   Appellate   Court   causing
prejudice   to   the   appellants   herein   while   opposing
the first appeals, the judgment rendered by the first
Appellate   Court,   in   our   opinion,   cannot   be
sustained legally on merits. 
20) The High Court also while deciding the second
appeals failed to notice these two jurisdictional legal
errors which went to the   root of the case.   It is for
9

this   reason,   the   impugned   order   also   cannot   be
legally sustained calling interference by this Court.  
21) In   the   light   of   the   foregoing   discussion   and
having regard to the totality of the  facts of the case
and to enable the parties to have full and fair  trial,
we consider it proper to take recourse to the powers
under   Order   41   Rule   23­A   of   the   Code   and
accordingly   set   aside   the   judgment   and   decree   of
the   first   Appellate   Court   to   the   extent   it   allows   the
respondents’ appeals on merit but at the same time
uphold   that   part   of   the   order   which   has   allowed
CMP   No.1559/1993   filed   by   the   plaintiffs   for
adducing additional evidence and remand the cases
to   the   Trial   Court   for     re­trial   of   all   the   four   civil
suits on merits afresh.
22) All   parties   to   the   four   civil   suits   (appellants
and   the   respondents)   are   allowed   to   amend   their
respective   pleadings,   if   they   wish   to   do   so.     The
10

appellants   are   allowed   to   adduce   additional
evidence   in   rebuttal.     Let   the   additional   evidence
taken   on   record   by   the   first   Appellate   Court   be
remitted   to   the   Trial   Court   for   its   proving   in
evidence in accordance with law. The Trial Court, if
considered   appropriate,   can   also   frame   additional
issues.   Parties   will   be   allowed   to   adduce   their   oral
and   documentary   evidence   in   addition   to   one
already adduced. 
23) The   Trial   Court   will   then   decide   the   suits
afresh   on   merits   on   the   basis   of   entire   evidence
without   being   influenced   by   any   of   the   previous
orders/judgments   rendered   in   this   case   including
this   order   because   having   formed   an   opinion   to
remand the case for re­trial, we have refrained from
entering   into   the   merits   of   the   issues.   Let   the   trial
be over within one year.  
11

24) In view of the foregoing discussion the appeals
succeed   and   are   allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set
aside.
                         
… ...……..................................J.
         [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
……… ...................................J.
     [S. ABDUL NAZEER]
New Delhi;
August 10, 2018 
12