Madras High Court
P.Geetha vs P. Krishnan on 8 January, 2021
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.Nos. 2282 and 2285 of 2016
and
CMP.No.11807 of 2016
CRP.PD.No. 2282 of 2016
1. P.Geetha
2. Minor P.Kalaivani
2nd petitioner represented by
Muniyammal
W/o.Muniappan ..Petitioners
Vs.
P. Krishnan ..Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the
District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, dated 17.03.2015 in I.A.No.180 of
2015 in O.S.No.12 of 2012.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Valliappan
For Respondent : No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
CRP.PD.No. 2285 of 2016
1. P.Geetha
2. Minor P.Kalaivani
2nd petitioner represented by
Muniyammal
W/o.Muniappan ..Petitioners
Vs.
P. Krishnan ..Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the
District Munsif Court at Dharmapuri, decree dated 04.09.2015 in
I.A.No.624 of 2015 in O.S.No.12 of 2012.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.Valliappan
For Respondent : No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed as against the fair and
decretal orders passed in IA.Nos.180 and 624 of 2015 in O.S.No.12 of 2012
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri dated 17.03.2015 and
04.09.2015 praying to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
2. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders
allowing the petitions to re-open and to receive the additional document in
the suit.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, they have filed a suit for
declaration and injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property as
against the respondent herein. After completion of both sides evidence, the
respondent has come forwarded with the petition to re-open and to receive
the additional document, which is sought to be marked on behalf of the
respondent herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit
was posted for pronouncement of judgment and at this juncture, the
respondent filed a petition to re-open and to receive the additional
document in the suit. In fact, there is absolutely no whisper about the said
document in the written statement filed by the respondent herein. Therefore,
without any pleading, in respect of the said document, the said document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
can not be marked and it is impermissible under law. He further submitted
that in fact, the respondent on three occasions filed the petition to re-open
for marking of documents and the same were allowed. The additional
documents were also marked on his side. While being so, when the matter
was posted for judgment, the respondent has come forwarded with a plea
that in the appeal suit filed by the grandfather of the first petitioner herein in
A.S.No.15 of 2008, there was a compromise between the respondent and the
appellant.
5. The respondent has now come with the application on 01.12.2005
that there was settlement between the petitioners' mother and the respondent
herein and the same was misplaced and now only the respondent found the
said document. When there was settlement in respect of the suit schedule
property definitely the respondent would have mentioned about the
settlement entered between the petitioners' mother and the respondent in the
pleadings. Therefore, he is attempting to introduce new fact and wanted to
mark the said document. The said document is nothing but fabricated one
and the trial Court ought not to have allowed to receive the said document
that was posted in the suit for arguments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
6. Though Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf
of the respondent, he did not appear today. Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
7. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and they have filed a suit for
declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against
the respondent herein. After closing both sides evidence the matter was
posted for arguments and at this juncture, the respondent filed the petition
to re-open and to receive the additional document, the settlement entered
between the petitioners' mother and the respondent dated 01.12.2005. In
fact, the respondent already filed the petition to file re-open and mark the
additional documents and the same was allowed and the document which
was sought to be marked was also marked by the trial Court. When the
matter was posted for arguments, the respondent filed the petition to re-
open for the purpose of marking the settlement between the petitioners and
the respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
8. On a perusal of the written statement, though the respondent stated
that there was settlement between the respondent and the petitioners' mother
in A.S.No.15 of 2008, the respondent never whispered about the settlement
deed entered between them. In fact, the settlement deed also is not part and
parcel of the decree in appeal suit. The petitioners' mother simply
withdrawn the appeal suit and the said decree was also marked in the suit.
Without considering the above facts, the trial Court simply allowed the
petition for the reason “interest of justice”. If the respondent allowed to re-
open and mark the documents it would cause prejudice to the petitioners
herein. Therefore, the order passed by the District Munsif Court,
Dharmapuri is perverse and illegal.
9. In view of the above discussion, these civil revision petitions are
allowed and the orders passed in IA.Nos.180 and 624 of 2015 in O.S.No.12
of 2012 dated 17.03.2015 and 04.09.2015 are set aside. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08.01.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
Internet : Yes/No
kv
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
kv
To
The District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.
CRP.PD.Nos. 2282 and 2285 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.Nos.2282 and 2285 of 2016
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
