C.Shanmugasundaram vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 8371 Mad

                                                                                    C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 14.07.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019
                                               and C.M.P.No.1684 of 2019


           C.Shanmugasundaram                                                        .. Petitioner


                                                         Vs.


           1.The District Collector
           Coimbatore.

           2.The Special Tahsildhar
           Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
           Coimbatore.                                                             ... Respondents



           Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

           against the fair and decretal order dated 07.12.2018 in I.A.No.1032 of 2018 in

           O.S.No.1579 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,

           Coimbatore.

                                      For Petitioner    : Mr.MA.P.Thangavel


                                      For Respondents   : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi
                                                         Additional Govt. Pleader (CS)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


           1/5
                                                                                       C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019


                                                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

Government Pleader for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the records.

2. The revision arises against an order passed in I.A.No.1032 of 2018 in

O.S.No.1579 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,

Coimbatore.

3. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the

defendants. I.A.No.1032 of 2018 was an application filed by the

respondents/defendants. Though the application states it is for condonation of delay

for production of documents, Order XIII Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure

has been substantially amended by way of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment

Act, 2002. Therefore, in effect, the application is under Order VIII Rule 1(a)(iii) of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The learned trial Judge after receipt of counter from the respondents, has

allowed the application. The documents are photostat copies, which have been

attested by the competent authority. Whether the documents are admissible in

evidence, as they are secondary evidence or whether the documents are necessary for

the purpose of the suit, have to be decided at the time of trial. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019

5. The learned Judge has also stated that it is open to the plaintiff/petitioner to

verify the originals along with the copies that have been filed along with I.A.No.1032

of 2018.

6. Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the

order falls out of two judgments of this Court in N.P.Lakshmanan and another vs.

R.Ranganathan (2018) 3 MLJ 26 and Murugan vs. Ayyanar

Manupatra/TN/0331/2018.

7. A perusal of the first judgment shows that there was absolutely no pleading

for the documents and they were all after suit documents. In so far as the second

judgment is concerned, the very same learned Judge had held that crucial admissions

have been made by D.W.1, if the documents were to be received, the defendants might

withdraw the same. She held it will cause serious prejudice to the case of the plaintiff.

8. In the present case, it cannot be stated that there is no pleading, because in

the written statement in paragraph 4, a specific stand has been taken by the defendants

that it verified the village and taluk records and came to the conclusion that the

plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule mentioned properties. Whether the

plaintiff has a right or not, is a matter, which has to be gone into at the time of trial.

However, there is a pleading to the effect that the plaintiff is not the true owner and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019

the defendants are attempting to place revenue as well as taluk records in the suit in

order to substantiate the case.

9. As pointed out by this Court in N.P.Lakshmanan and another vs.

R.Ranganathan (2018) 3 MLJ 26 and Murugan vs. Ayyanar

Manupatra/TN/0331/2018, this is a case of exercise of discretion and the discretion

has been properly exercised. Sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

unless and until the discretion is arbitrary or absolutely illegal, I cannot interfere with

the same. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned II Additional

District Munsif, Coimbatore, dated 07.12.2018 and the same is confirmed.

10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

14.07.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

kj

To The II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

Kj

C.R.P.(PD)No.214 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.1684 of 2019

14.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis