Madras High Court
Jayaprakash vs Marimuthu on 25 January, 2021
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015 and
MP.No.1 of 2015
CRP.PD.No.3585 of 2015
Jayaprakash ..Petitioner
Vs.
Santhosh(died)
1.Marimuthu
2.Andimuthu
3.Govindasamy
4.Periyanayagam
5.Shanthi
6.Babu
7.Sangeetha ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order of the III
Additional District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 04.07.2015 in
IA.No.1169 of 2015 in OS.No.788 of 2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
R1,3 to 7 : Notice served
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
CRP.PD.No.3586 of 2015
Jayaprakash ..Petitioner
Vs.
Santhosh(died)
1.Marimuthu
2.Andimuthu
3.Govindasamy
4.Periyanayagam
5.Shanthi
6.Babu
7.Sangeetha ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order of the III
Additional District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 04.07.2015 in
IA.No.1170 of 2015 in OS.No.788 of 2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
R1,3 to 7 : Notice served
CRP.PD.No.3587 of 2015
Jayaprakash ..Petitioner
Vs.
Santhosh(died)
1.Marimuthu
2.Andimuthu
3.Govindasamy
4.Periyanayagam
5.Shanthi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
6.Babu
7.Sangeetha ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order of the III
Additional District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 04.07.2015 in
IA.No.1171 of 2015 in OS.No.788 of 2006.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondents
For R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
R1,3 to 7 : Notice served
COMMON ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of fair
and decreetal order of the III Additional District Munsif Court at
Kallakurichi dated 04.07.2015 in IA.Nos.1169, 1170 & 1171 of 2015 in
OS.No.788 of 2006.
2. In all the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the
plaintiff. He filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the
suit property as against the respondents. The petitioner is claiming
the suit property by way of adverse possession. By the open peaceful
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the
plaintiff and his predecessors for over the statutory period , the
plaintiff had also had his title perfected by adverse possession. When
it being so, the suit is of the year 2006. In the year 2015, the
petitioner filed petitions for reopen and recall for marking documents,
that too, when the suit was posted for judgment. Therefore, those
petitions are only to fill up the lacuna which causes prejudice to the
respondents. In fact, the petitioner already filed petitions to reopen
and recall to mark certain documents which were admitted on two
occasions. The present petitions are filed on third occasion for the very
same relief. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment in the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy
reported in 2011 (3) CTC 422, wherein it is held as follows:
“16. We may add a word of caution. The power
under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not
intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used,
it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the
Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be
bonafide and where the additional evidence, oral or
documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the
issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is
satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient
reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it
should ensure that the process does not become a protracting
tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the
other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court
should take up and complete the case within a fixed time
schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application
is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up
negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. If
the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and
ultimately the court finds that evidence was not genuine or
relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling
the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary
costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of
evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such
evidence earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led
is clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that
the object of the application is merely to protract the
proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the
evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record, the court
may also listen to the recording before granting or rejecting the
application.”
3. In the case on hand, admittedly the suit of the year 2006.
When the matter was posted for judgment, after hearing both the
sides, the petitioner came forward with these petitions to reopen and
recall to mark additional documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
4. On perusal of the documents which is intended to be
marked by the plaintiff is dated 24.02.1998, according to the
petitioner, the said document was executed by one Poongavanammal
in favour of the defendant. However, on perusal of the affidavit filed
in support of the petitions, no reasons have been stated by the
petitioner herein. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to
the case on hand. Hence, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in
the order passed by the court below.
5. Accordingly, all the civil revision petitions are dismissed.
Considering that the suit is of the year 2006, the trial court is directed
to dispose of the suit within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. No order as to costs.
25.01.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
To
The III Additional District Munsif Court
at Kallakurichi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
CRP.PD.Nos.3585 to 3587 of 2015
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
