IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 77 of 2004() ----------------------------- AS.2/1996 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.596/1992 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------- 1. MARKOSE NADAR ELSON, RESIDING AT THAZHE KUDAKUTHI PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR DESOM, -DO- VILLAGE. 2. ROSU, D/O. KUNJELI, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS.MR.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 AND 6: -------------------------- 1. JANAKI RAJAMMA, RESIDING AT USHA MANDIRAM, KARIPARAKONAM, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR DESOM, -DO- VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. C.R.SUDARSANAN, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. R1 & R2 BY ADVS.MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN, MR.G.SUDHEER. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.822/2004 IN FAO. NO.77/2004 DISMISSED 28/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No.2/1996. The suit is one for recovery of possession of a portion of the property on the strength of title and also for putting up boundaries . It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property is having an extent of 88 cents which has been marked by the Commissioner in O.S.No.640/1963 as GHIJTWU plot. It is further contended that by virtue of that decree there was a direction against the defendants to demolish the basement which had been protruding into the property. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the case and on 27.7.1982 violating the order of injunction he has trespassed into the plaint schedule property. This necessitated the plaintiffs to sue for recovery of possession of an extent of property mentioned in the plaint. On the other hand, the defendants would contend that there is no such trespass : 2 : F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004 and the plaintiffs have no right and even if there is any right it is lost by adverse possession and limitation and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court, on appreciation of the materials, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and also granted a mandatory injunction to remove the tomb within three months. Recovery of possession was with respect to 117 square links of the property. There was also an injunction. Against that, the second defendant and the 6th defendant filed AS.2/1996. While arguing the appeal, Exts.B3 to B5 were brought to the notice of the court by producing the same under Order 41 Rule 27 of Cr.P.C. It was argued by the appellant that the suit claim is barred by resjudicata. The appellate court without any hesitation set aside the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case back to the trial court with a direction for denovo trial after framing an additional issue as to whether the suit is barred by resjudicata. I am afraid that the learned Subordinate Judge has not applied the principles of law correctly. It is fundamental in civil suits that the parties are covered and bound by the pleadings. It is a settled proposition : 3 : F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004 that any amount of evidence tendered cannot be looked into by a court of law unless it is backed up by the pleadings. Question of resjudicata is a very serious matter which shuts the entry to a court because of final determination of an issue by the competent court of jurisdiction. It is also an equally settled principle that plea of resjudicata should be pleaded and documents necessary in support of the same should be produced before the court of law. Admittedly in the written statement filed by the parties, the plea of resjudicata had not been raised at all. 2. I received a copy of the memorandum of appeal by the learned counsel appearing for the party and the memorandum of appeal also does not reveal the question of resjudicata. Therefore it was not proper on the part of the appellate court to direct the trial court to frame an additional issue on resjudicata and try the matter denovo. The said finding is not sustainable in law and therefore it is liable to be reversed and I do so. 3. In the absence of pleadings, the question of resjudicata cannot be entertained by the appellate court at : 4 : F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004 that stage. It means that the matter has to go back to the appellate court. The documents are produced under Order 41 Rule 27. There is no absolute prohibition of production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 and the parties are permitted to do so if they comply and satisfy the conditions enumerated under that rule. When such documents are produced before the court, the apex court has cautioned that it should not be heard separately but it should be heard along with the appeal and when the whole matter is being analysed the court can come to a decision on the petition of reception of documents and the court if accepts the documents, that can mark it and then proceed in accordance with law. 4. Therefore, whether it should have been produced earlier or it is necessary for a proper disposal of the case are all matters which the appellate court has to consider while hearing the appeal on merit. I do not want to elaborate on facts for the reason that the matter has to be heard by the Subordinate Judge afresh. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the order of remand is set aside and it is made clear that : 5 : F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004 the appellate court has erred in directing the matter to be tried on a question of resjudicata which is not backed up by any pleadings. Therefore the appellate court is directed to restore the appeal back to file and hear the appeal afresh after affording equal opportunities to both sides and also consider regarding reception and other things with respect to the documents produced at the time of hearing of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the court can take a decision in accordance with law and dispose of the matter. If any fresh pleading or anything is attempted to be put forward, let it be also considered by the court. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 1.3.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 6 : F.A.O.No.77 OF 2004