Madras High Court
Panneerselvam vs Kala on 8 December, 2021
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P.(PD) No.1888 of 2019
and C.M.P. No.12422 of 2019
1. Panneerselvam
2. Muniammal
3. Saravanan ...Petitioners
Versus
Kala ...Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set side the fair and decreetal order, dated 13.02.2019 passed in I.A.
No.627 of 2018 in O.S. No.133 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Munsif
Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.A.Sudhesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr. R.Jayaprakash
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the
Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in I.A. No.627 of
2018 in O.S. No.133 of 2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.133 of 2014 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District. The
respondents in this Civil Revision Petition as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.
No.133 of 2014 for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The revision
petitioners filed a written statement. Later the suit was amended as one for
declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Earlier the suit was decreed
by a judgment and decree dated 10.08.2016. However, the revision petitioners
filed an appeal in A.S. No.34 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tirupattur, and the
same was allowed and the suit was remitted to the trial Court for fresh
consideration permitting denovo trial. After remand, the revision petitioners
filed an application to permit the petitioners to examine Village Administrative
Officer, Simmanapudur Village, Tirupattur Taluk, to produce 'A' Register Chitta
and Adangal for Fasli 1422 to 1426 Fasli and to give evidence thereon. The
application was contested by the respondent on the ground that the Tahsildar
and Deputy Tahsildar of the Tirupattur Taluk had already been examined and
that they have produced 'A' Register which was marked as Ex.X1. Since the
higher officials like Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar had already been examined
to mark Adangal accounts and other revenue records, it is contended by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
respondent that the application filed by the revision petitioners is to drag on the
proceedings. After holding that the examination of Village Administrative
Officer is not necessary since the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar have already
been examined and 'A' Register as well as Chitta adangal for Fasli 1422 to 1426
Fasli had already been marked, the learned Principal District Munsif,
Tirupattur, dismissed the application.
3. This Court is unable to find any irregularity in the order of the lower
Court dismissing the petition which was filed after remand. Learned counsel
contended that one of the Adangal extract for Fasli 1422 was not marked and
therefore the Village Administrative Officer can be examined as he is the
authority competent to prepare and maintain Adangal accounts. It is further
stated that the appellate Court earlier remitted the matter to give opportunities
to the parties to give further evidence. Referring to the same, the learned counsel
further submitted that the lower Court refused to given an opportunity to the
petitioner by dismissing the application. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is unable to point out any serious prejudice that is caused to the
petitioners by the dismissal of the application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
4. This Court is of the view that the application is aimless since the
documents which are sought to be marked by the Village Administrative Officer
have already been marked. The Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar have already
been examined to mark several revenue documents. Merely because one of the
witnesses has spoken to the fact that one of the Adangal for Fasli 1422 was not
marked, it is not necessary that some other witnesses should be called once
again to mark similar document. The petitioners have not come up with any
concrete case with regard to the Adangal in respect of Fasli 1422. In such
circumstances, this Court is unable to find any bonafides in the petition. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that
the petitioners' application is unnecessary, unwarranted, lacks bonafides and
unsustainable in law.
5. As a result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The
trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
08.12.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
bkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
Copy to:
The Principal District Munsif,
Tirupattur, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 6
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J .,
bkn
C.R.P. (PD) No.1888 of 2019
08.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 6
