T.N. Vallinayagam, J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellate. The suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of CTS 5234 as shown in 'ABCD' portion situated at Laxmeshwar and for mandatory injunction for removal of Morum stored in the suit site, was dismissed by the Trial Court and such dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Court on appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal.
2. Claiming to be the absolute owner in possession, the plaintiff complained unauthorised storing of Morum and Khadi over the area marked ABCD; the defendant while admitting such a storage disputed the title of the plaintiff over the area and alternative claimed to have perfected the title by adverse possession. The adverse possession was claimed on the ground that a portion of the suit property was being used by the genera, public for more than 100 years. The question of limitation also was raised.
3. The Trial Court finding that the plaintiff has not proved ownership and possession, upheld the plea of the defendant on adverse possession and dismissed the suit, The Appellate Court confirmed such dismissal holding that even if the plaintiff proved the title, the possession of ABCD of TMC 5234 is not proved. Commenting upon the plaintiff's omission to get the entire property measured for fixing up the boundary for demarcation of the portion of the open site, the Appellate Court disagreed with the claim of the plaintiff.
4. Apart from the grounds of attack made in the second appeal, the main complaint of the plaintiff was that no opportunity to file the application for additional evidence was granted despite the request made before the Appellate Court. The Learned appellate Judge rejected the receipt of the public document on the ground that the judgment was already dictated to the stenographer. He held that once a suit is appealed against, the judgment, after hearing is not a suit for appeal pending before the Court and party cannot ask the court to take it up for hearing again.
5. This view of the learned Judge is wrong. An application to reopen the hearing can be filed even before pronouncement of the judgment. After all, courts have meant to protect the rights of the parties, not to dispose of the rights in a light and casual manner, relying upon technicalities. A man comes to Court for relief and all the procedure is to be, no doubt followed; the procedure is hand maid of law. The procedure is normally followed upon by people who represent the cause of the parties. Due to various reasons either the party would not have been able to secure or get some important document or his representative might be under the mistaken concept of notion that his right can always be protected whenever and wherever it is possible. But that should never be utilised to deny justice.
6. In my view the appellate court ought to have received the application and passed orders on merits by considering those documents and the effect thereof, Then only the courts should proceed to decide the rights of the parties. If the suit were to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the documents to prove his title as against the public body, that would be the end of the plaintiff's right for ever. So the court should always consider and approach such prayer for reopening or additional evidence with human touch apart from relying upon the power and strict technicalities of law. In this case the rejection of the important document to evidence the title in favour of the plaintiff has resulted in great prejudice to the plaintiff. I am inclined to grant the prayer of the appellate to produce additional document before the first appellate Court.
7. In this view, the matter is remitted back to the first appellate Court with a direction to receive the documents subject to proof and relevancy, allow the appellant to prove the same and after giving opportunity to both the parties, dispose of the case on merits.
8. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded. The parties are directed to appear before the first appellate Court on 16.2.1988.