Madras High Court
P.M.Rangasami vs V.Ramkumar on 8 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.833 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.6930 of 2021
P.M.Rangasami ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant
Vs
V.Ramkumar ..Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order and decree passed in I.A.No.471 of
2020 in O.S.No.215 of 2014 by the Principal District Munsif Court,
Poonamallee.
For Petitioner .. Mr.P.M.Rangasami,
(Party-In-Person)
For Respondent .. No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
Heard the petitioner who appeared as party in person through
video conferencing.
2.The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.215 of 2014
which is now pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif
Poonamallee. The said suit was initially instituted in the District
Munsif Court, Ambattur in O.S.No.377 of 2012. The suit had been
filed by the plaintiff, V.Ramkumar, seeking a judgment and decree
against the defendant in the nature of a permanent injunction
restraining the defendant who is the petitioner herein from interfering
with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property,
namely, land and building measuring to an extent of 1626 Sq.ft out of
3274 Sq.ft in Korattur Village in Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.
3.The petitioner herein claimed that he is the owner of the suit
property. He suddenly found that a building had come in the said
premises and in this regard had raised questions which led to the
institution of the suit by the plaintiff against him. The plaintiff claims
title to the said property by way of various Sale Deeds particularly,
http://www.judis.nic.in
executed around the year 2006 by various individuals whom the
petitioner herein claims fictitious persons. It is the case of the
petitioner that the Sale Deeds are fraudulent Sale Deeds and that the
plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property.
4.The suit had proceeded to the stage of tendering evidence.
PW-1 was examined in chief and cross-examined by the petitioner
herein. During the course of cross-examination PW-1 had stated that
he would produce as witnesses, Vinodh Rajkumar, Janardhana Raju
and R.C.Ramkumar who are the persons from whom the plaintiff
traces title.
5.However, after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, the
plaintiff had not taken any steps to examine the said individuals as
witnesses. This has caused much grievance to the petitioner herein
who had expected those witnesses to graze the witness box thereby
giving him an opportunity to cross-examine them and also put forth
his case that the Sale Deeds relied on by the plaintiff are fraudulent
documents.
6.Aggrieved by the fact plaintiff had not taken steps to
http://www.judis.nic.in
examine the said witnesses the petitioner herein originally filed
I.A.No.861 of 2019. That was dismissed by an order dated
19.02.2020. Thereafter the petitioner herein also filed I.A.No.471 of
2020 to review the said order of the Principal District Munsif,
Poonamallee. That application was also dismissed. Questioning that
particular order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
7.In the order of the learned District Munsif, it had been very
clearly stated that under Section 114 of the CPC, a review can be
maintained only when there is an error on the face of the order and
that for the reasons stated to review the said order, review would not
be maintainable.
8.Heard the petitioner herein, as stated who appeared as party
in person. Naturally, being party in person, he was emotionally
attached to the case and was not able to segregate the legal issues in
the case. Perused the records produced.
9.The order of the learned Principal District Munsif Poonamallee,
dated 22.12.2020 which is impugned cannot be called into question.
It is on a very limited point, whether an earlier order can be
reviewed or not. The reasons which the learned Principal District
http://www.judis.nic.in
Munsif had stated that the order cannot be reviewed are correct.
10.However, let me go a little further. The petitioner herein as
a defendant can file necessary application to issue subpoena to
summon as witnesses the named individuals. If subpoena is to be
issued, the witnesses can be examined as Court witnesses, thereby
giving an opportunity not only to the present petitioner but also to
the plaintiff to cross-examine the said witnesses. Further if subpoena
is issued and the subpoena is returned unserved, the petitioner
herein can also call upon the learned Principal District Munsif,
Poonamallee, to draw an inference that the said persons are fictitious
persons and thereby also draw a further inference that the plaintiff
had not examined the said individuals only because they do not either
exist or if they appear, then they would speak adverse to the case of
the plaintiff.
11.The petitioner herein can take advantage of Section 114(g)
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to that extent.
12.I am not convinced that the order under revision should be
interfered with. Rather with the above observations, liberty is granted
http://www.judis.nic.in
to the petitioner to file necessary application to issue subpoena to the
said individuals to appear and tender evidence as court witnesses and
also seek liberty to cross examine the said witnesses and also seek
liberty to call upon the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee,
to draw adverse inference in the event of their absence.
13.With the above observations, the Revision Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is also closed.
08.04.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Poonamallee.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (NPD) No.833 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.6930 of 2021
08.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
