Madras High Court
Chandrasulochana vs Vadivelu on 9 July, 2021
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
and
CMP. No.10044 of 2021
[Through Video Conferencing]
Chandrasulochana ...Petitioner / Plaintiff in both CRPs
Vs.
1. Vadivelu
2. P.Amul
3. The Sub Registrar
Arakkonam Sub Registrar Office
Arakkonam, Ranipet District
4. The Collector of Vellore District
Collector Office, Vellore ... Respondents/Defendants
in both CRPs
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order and decreetal order dated
03.02.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 in O.S.No.110 of 2012 enabling
the petitioner to give rebuttal evidence in O.S.No.110 of 2012 pending on the
file of District Munsif Court at Sholinghur.
For Petitioner in both CRPs : Mr.A.M.Ravichandran
For Respondents in both CRPs : No Appearance
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.110 of 2012 now pending on the file of
the District Munsif Court at Sholingur is the revision petitioner herein.
2.The suit is now pending for the past nearly 9 years. It has slowly
progressed and finally recording of evidence has been commenced. However
the plaintiff has a grievance.
3.It is stated that for further recording of evidence in chief on the
plaintiff's side, the suit was posted for 12.02.2020.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff was not able to appear
before the Court owing to other judicial engagements and evidence of the
plaintiff was therefore closed. The matter thereafter proceeded in its normal
course and was then posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff had filed
I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall
the witness for filing additional proof affidavit, with a specific request to file
three additional documents namely the Judgment in O.S.No.330 of 1988,
Judgment and decree in A.S.No.103 of 1993. It is claimed that the additional
proof affidavit was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/6
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
5.In view of the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, examination
in chief should be recorded through proof affidavits. Practically in all the cases
the proof affidavit is a replica of the plaint. There is no occasion for any of the
facts which had been pleaded in the plaint to be omitted in the proof affidavit.
6.Earlier when chief examination was recorded orally, the witness
should not be led and therefore, there was a strict adherence to the rule that the
plaintiff can state only what he knew to his knowledge directly. But that
procedure has drastically changed as stated above.
7.The Plaintiff, while filing the suit had filed eight documents and those
documents had also been taken on record. These three documents are
documents not filed along with the plaint. If the plaintiff had wanted to
introduce them, then he should file an application to produce additional
documents and thereafter should seek permission to re-open the evidence and
to recall the witness.
8.A perusal of the documents show that they are certified copies of the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.330 of 1988 and A.S.No.103 of 1993. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/6
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
said doubts may be examined by the learned District Munsif at Sholingur and
if they are relevant, the learned Munsif may place reliance on the same. It all
depends on the nature of pleadings and the nature of evidence recorded.
9.I would not therefore interfere with the order passed, but rather give an
opportunity to the counsel for the plaintiff while advancing arguments, to also
placed on record these three documents namely the Judgment in O.S.No.330 of
1998 and Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.103 of 1993 and impress upon the
District Munsif their relevancy and thereafter, the learned District Munsif,
Sholingur may take a considered decision on their applicability with respect to
the issues in O.S.No.110 of 2012.
10.Let the plaintiff argue the matter and give the privilege to the learned
District Munsif at Sholingur to pass a Judgment on merits. The said matter is
now posted for arguments. I hope that the learned District Munsif at Sholingur
would bestow attention and dispose of the suit itself on or before 31.08.2021. I
would place an obligation on the learned counsels for the plaintiff and
defendant to argue the matter without taking unnecessary adjournments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/6
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
11.With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition also stands
closed. No order as to costs.
09.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssi
To
1.The District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/6
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi
CRP (PD) Nos.1282 & 1283 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
