Madras High Court
K.Vijaya vs K.Devi ...1St on 13 June, 2022
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1796 &1797 of 2022
and
CMP.Nos.9093 & 9094 of 2022
1.K.Vijaya
2.K.Suresh
3.K.Deepa
4.K.Bharathi Rathina ... Petitioners in both CRPs
Vs.
1.K.Devi ...1st respondent in both CRPs
2.Kavitha Devi ... 2nd Respondent in CRP.No.1796/2022
3.S.P.Sethulingam ...2nd respondent in CRP.No.1797/2022
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgments and decrees in
I.A.Nos.1& 1 of 2022 in OS.Nos.104 & 103 of 2011 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Tambaram, dated 18.04.2022.
In both CRPs
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarathi Chandran
For Respondents : No such person for R1
: In sufficient Address for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the revision
petitioners, by challenging the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Tambaram, dated 18.04.2022 made in I.A.Nos.1 & 1 of 2022 in
O.S.Nos.104 & 103 of 2011.
2. The Revision Petitioners are the defendants 2 to 5 in the suits.
During the pendency of the suits, the revision petitioners preferred these
petitions to re-open the evidence of the defendants to adduce evidence by
producing certain documents. The learned trial Judge dismissed both the
applications. Aggrieved over that these Civil Revision Petitions have been
preferred.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that
the case still stands for arguments and posted to 17.06.2022. On perusal of
the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is seen that the
revision petitioners did not seek any permission from the Court to produce
documents which they omitted to produce at the time when they filed their
written statement.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that
after deposing the evidence of the 1st defendant a direction should have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
been given to the other defendants also to adduce their evidence. Normally
only when the other defendants do not have any evidence or they did not
make use of their opportunity, the evidence of the other defendants will be
closed. It is seen from the order of the learned trial Judge that on 23.02.2022
cross examination of DW1 was over. In the E-Court details; it is seen that
after the cross of DW1 was over on 23.02.2022, again the matter was
adjourned to 02.03.2022 for defence side evidence only. So, the revision
petitioners/defendants ought to have made use of the opportunity given to
them and let in their evidence on 02.03.2022, if they had any oral evidence.
5. It is not the contention of the revision petitioners that they were
ready on 02.03.2022 to depose their evidence but the Court did not permit.
After giving an opportunity on 02.03.2022, the learned trial Judge closed
the evidence and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments on
07.03.2022. However, the revision petitioners now submitted that they have
some documents relevant for their defence and in the interest of the justice
an opportunity should be granted. The revision petitioners ought to have
filed these documents at the time of filing their written statement itself.
Since they omitted to file the documents, they are required to seek
permission of the Court under Order 8 Rule 1 A(3) of the Civil Procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
Code.
6. I feel the interest of justice will be served if the matter is
remanded to the trial Court itself for enabling the petitioners to file a
petition under Order 8 Rule 1 A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code and seek
permission of the Court to file the documents of their behalf and thereafter
file any petition to re call their witnesses for examination.
Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petitions are disposed and
and the matter is remanded back to the file of Subordinate Court, Tambaram
for considering the above two Interlocutory applications afresh, after a
petition filed by the Revision Petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 A(3) of the
Civil Procedure Code, along with a fresh petition to re open the evidence. In
the event of filing such petitions, the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the
same within a period of two weeks. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are also closed. No costs.
13.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
jrs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Tambaram.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1796 & 1797 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
jrs
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.1796 &1797 of 2022
and
CMP.Nos.9093 & 9094 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
