Madras High Court
Ramasamy vs Duraisamy on 30 June, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P(PD).No.1084 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.8506 of 2021
1.Ramasamy
2.Vedanayagi
3.Uthami ...Petitioners
Vs
1.Duraisamy
2.Nallathambi
3.Rajamani ...Respondents
Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.01.2020 made in
I.A.No.651 of 2019 in O.S.No.4 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Kangeyam, Thirupur District.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Regunathan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
ORDER
The defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.4 of 2012, now pending on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam are the revision petitioners herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
2.The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 07.01.2020 passed
in I.A.No.651 of 2019 which application had been filed seeking to issue
summons to the Sub Registrar, Kangeyam to produce a particular partition
deed which has been registered in the said office. The trial of the suit in
O.S.No.4 of 2012 appears to have been very torturous affair. As a matter of
fact, evidence had been closed in the year 2015 and the suit had been posted
for delivering judgment. From the year 2015 onwards, it had prolonged to
till date for the past nearly six years which has out spanned the three years
from date of constitution.
3.At any rate, originally in the year 2017 it appears that applications
came to be filed seeking to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and recall
P.W.1. Those applications were dismissed. Thereafter, again in the year
2019, further applications were filed to reopen the evidence of the
defendants and to recall D.W.1. Those applications came to be allowed.
Pursuant to the said applications being allowed, D.W.1 was called back to
the witness stand. A partition deed said to have been executed between a
father and son, namely, the first defendant and his son, who is since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
deceased, had been put to the first defendant. The evidence recorded during
cross examination has been extracted in the order now under revision. The
witness denied execution. He denied his signature. He denied the
photograph affixed in the said document. He actually denied all knowledge
about the said document. It is to be kept in mind that this was a registered
document. This denial by the witness/D.W.1 necessitated the plaintiffs to
file I.A.No.651 of 2019 to issue summons to the Sub Registrar where the
said document was registered to come and speak about the registration of
the said document. That application came to be allowed by the learned
Judge by order dated 07.01.2020 which is now questioned in the present
revision petition.
4.Mr.V.Regunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 3
to 5 expressed anguish over the manner in which the trial in the suit had
been prolonged and protracted and according to him, only by the plaintiffs.
He pointed out the facts which have been stated above, namely, that the suit
had been posted for delivering judgment in the year 2015 and thereafter in
the year 2017, applications have been filed seeking to reopen evidence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
the plaintiffs and to recall P.W.1 which applications came to be dismissed
and thereafter, in the year 2019, further applications came to be filed to
reopen the evidence of the defendants and to recall D.W.1 and those
applications were allowed and the suit in which judgment was said to have
been delivered in the year 2015 is still pending. The learned counsel
therefore stated that it is a never ending story and wondered whether any
further applications would be filed in future.
5.Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in
the suit, however, drew the attention of the Court to the cross examination
of D.W.1 when the document was put to him. The document, purportedly
was executed by him and was a partition deed executed by him along with
his now deceased son. However, the witness denied all knowledge of the
document. He denied execution. He denied his signature. He even denied
the photograph affixed in the document as being his photograph.
6.The learned Judge in the course of the order dated 07.01.2020 had
taken into consideration the fact that the suit had been pending for quite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
considerable time. But had still stated that in order to effectively determine
the issues raised, it would be only advantageous that the Sub Registrar is
summoned as a witness to speak about the registration of the said document.
In fact, I am conscious of the fact that it is the learned Trial Judge who has
to determine the issues framed in the suit and the views of any Trial Judge
should be taken into consideration. If the Court of first instance is of the
opinion that further evidence is required to determine the issues in the suit,
it would only be appropriate that necessary leverage is given to the said
Court and as, being a fact finding authority, all possible evidence must be
placed on the table of the learned Judge to determine the issues and analyse
the evidence.
7.Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent also relied on
a judgment of this Court in 2008 (3) LW 534 [M.Pa.Basheer Agameth and
3 others vs. Kathija Beevi and 13 others], wherein a learned Single Judge
of this Court had examined the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1A of CPC
and stated that the essence of the said provision enables a party to bring any
witness to the witness box and that it is a provision to enable the facts to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
determined by the Court. If any Court is of the opinion that by summoning
a witness it would be advantageous to the particular Court, then the witness
should be summoned.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on a judgment
in AIR 2021 Mad 61 [R.Raja Rajagopal Thondaiman vs. M/s.Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and others], wherein also a learned
Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to examine the nature of
evidence recorded by the Trial Court and had observed that the Trial Court
should always provide greater latitude during trial proceedings since it is the
first Court to determine the facts.
9.I am in agreement with the said observation. Even in the instant
case, the learned Judge in the order now under question had stated that
examination of the witness would be advantageous and beneficial to
determine the issues raised and to determine the disputed facts between the
parties. Therefore, it would only be appropriate that the order is allowed to
stand and is not interfered with. However, necessary directions will have to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
be given so that the trial proceedings would come to a conclusion.
Therefore, the evidence of the Registrar may be recorded within a specific
time and thereafter the learned counsels are requested to cooperate by
advancing arguments without any default or taking unnecessary
adjournments. The learned Judge may endeavour to dispose of the suit in
O.S.No.4 of 2012 on or before 09.09.2021.
10.With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.06.2021
cse
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.1084 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J,
cse
To
The District Munsif,
Kangeyam, Thirupur District.
C.R.P(PD)No.1084 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.8506 of 2021
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
