Madras High Court
A.L.Saliya Begum vs Sirkali Municipality on 2 July, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.1525 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:02.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1525 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.8308 of 2016
A.L.Saliya Begum ... Petitioner
Vs.
Sirkali Municipality
Rep. by its Commissioner
Kamarajar Veethi
Sirkali Town,
Nagapattinam. ... Respondent
PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the fair and final order of the Additional Sub
Court, Mayiladuturai, dated 09.03.2016 made in I.A.No.8/2016 in
A.S.No.60/2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sounthar
For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas
ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing)
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner,
challenging the order of the learned Additional Judge, Mayiladuturai, dated
09.03.2016 made in I.A.No.8/2016 in A.S.No.60/2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1525 of 2016
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the
defendant in the original suit in O.S.No.48 of 2009 filed before the District
Munsif Court, Sirkali, for the relief of declaration and injunction. The said
suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the judgment and
decree dated 30.08.2013, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal in
A.S.No.60 of 2013 before the Additional Sub Court of Mayiladudurai.
While the appeal was pending, it appears that the respondent / defendant has
moved an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.8/2016 under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC, to recall DW1 for recording additional evidence. By an order
dated 9.3.2016 the application was allowed by the First Appellate Court.
Challenging the same the petitioner/plaintiff has come forward with the
present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The submissions made by both side counsels heard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First
Appellate Court has been repeatedly allowing the defendant to let in
additional evidence and the issue about receiving additional documents as
evidence should be decided along with appeal and that the petitioner have
produced the additional documents just to just to fill up the lacunae and to
condone their own negligence. By making use of the order of the Appellate
court DW1 was recalled and filed additional documents. Since the petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1525 of 2016
to receive additional documents was not decided along with the appeal, the
petitioner lost the opportunity to raise objection to receive the additional
documents.
5. These contentions now put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner
can be raised by him during the hearing of the first appeal itself. And the
appeal need not be kept pending in view of this proceedings pending here.
Hence I opt to leave all the factual and legal contentions now raised by the
parties left open to be raised before the First Appellate Court itself during
the hearing of the first Appeal.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off and all the
questions of facts and law raised in this proceedings left open to be raised
before the First Appellate Court in the Appeal itself. Taking into
consideration the long pendency of the matter, the learned Additional Sub-
Judge, Mayiladudurai is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose off
the Appeal at the earliest. No costs. Consequently, connected civil
miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.8308 of 2016, is also closed.
02.07.2021
(5/5)
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
jrs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1525 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
jrs
To
1. The Additional Sub Court, Myladudurai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1525 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.8308 of 2016
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
