Madras High Court
K.Mahadevan vs Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar Trust on 31 January, 2022
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. KANNAMMAL
CRP (PD) Nos.2594 and 2595 of 2021
and CMP No.19229 of 2021
K.Mahadevan ... Petitioner in both C.R.Ps.
Vs
Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar Trust,
by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.A.M.Ramasamy (Died)
Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar Trust,
by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.A.M.Ramasamy (Died)
A.C.Muthaiah,
S/o.M.A.Chidambaram ... Respondents in both C.R.Ps
Prayer: The Civil Revision petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 24.09.2021 in I.A.Nos.417
and 418 of 2021 in O.S.No.120 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional
District Munsif, Chidambaram.
For Petitioner
in both C.R.Ps. : Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent
in both C.R.Ps. : Mr.S.Sithirai Anandan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders made in
I.A.Nos.417 and 418 of 2021 in O.S.No.120 of 2010, dated 24.09.2021 on
the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.
2. The suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010 was laid by the
plaintiff/respondent herein before the learned Principal District Munsif,
Chidambaram for recovery of possession of B Schedule property, recovery of
arrears of rent and for future means of profits. Pending suit, the plaintiff has
filed two applications in I.A.Nos.417 and 418 of 20221 in O.S.No.120 of
2010 before the trial Court to recall and reopen the evidence of DW1 for
cross examination. The trial Court accepted the reasons assigned in the
affidavit filed in support of the applications concluded that the plaintiff
should have been given an opportunity to cross examine the defendant's
witness. On the said conclusion, the learned trial Judge allowed the
applications on condition that the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs.300/-, as costs
for each application. It is aggrieved by this order, the defendant has come
up with these revisions.
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
3. I have heard Mr.K.Muthappan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.Mr.S.Sithirai Anandan, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent in both Civil Revision petitions.
4. Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the suit is of the year 2010 and P.W.1 was
cross examined on 08.06.2021 and 02.08.2021 and thereafter the suit was
posted on various dates till 06.09.2021 for arguments. According to the
petitioner, the filing of the two interlocutory applications are only to drag on
the proceedings in the suit. The learned counsel would further contend that
the affidavit filed by the respondent for recall and reopen the witness is
vague and even there is no mention in the affidavit regarding the document
which is going to be filed. The trial Court without considering the facts that
no reasons have been stated in the affidavit for the delay in producing the
documents, had simply allowed the petitions and hence the learned counsel
prays for setting aside the orders passed by the trial Court.
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the documents which are sought to be marked through
the defendant is essential for proper adjudication in this case and the trial
Court after considering the facts and circumstances, had rightly allowed the
applications and therefore no interference is called for. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the respondent has filed an additional
typed set of papers enclosing two letters dated 26.02.2007, out of which, he
restricts his claim only to the first letter, dated 26.02.2007 which is a
communication of the petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner. The learned
counsel also relied on the following Judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court wherein the applications to recall and reopen the witness
have been allowed:
1. AIR 1981 P & H 157 in Om Prakash Sapura and others
2. 1984 (2) SCC 354 in M.M.Amnokar Vs. Dr.S.A.Johari
3. AIR 1998 MAD 323 in S.S.S.Durai Pandian Vrs. S.a.Samuthira
Pandian
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that once the reasons for
producing the documents are accepted, automatically the plaintiff should be
given an opportunity to restore the original position and he should be
allowed to give an opportunity to cross examine the defence witness. The
trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioner and
allowed the applications and I do not think such exercise of discretion can be
interfered with, particularly exercise of the power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The revisions are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.01.2022
vum
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To:
The Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (PD) No.2595 of 2021
S. KANNAMMAL, J.
vum
CRP (PD) Nos.2594 and 2595 of 2021
and CMP No.19229 of 2021
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
