Madras High Court
Dhiraj Vinod Jain vs Kanchan Sampath Jain (Died) on 18 July, 2023
CRP No.3406 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.3406 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.22360 of 2019
1.Dhiraj Vinod Jain
2.Manav Vinod Jain
3.Vinit Vinod Jain
4.Sneha Siddarth Parekh
(P.3 is permitted to represent P.4 as
Power of Attorney vide Court order
dated 27.09.2019 made in CMP No.
21103/2019 in CRPSR No.113976/2016)
... Petitioners
Vs
1.Kanchan Sampath Jain (died)
2.Jayantilal Jain
3.Leela J.Jain
4.Naresh Kumar Sampathraj Jain
5.Ashok Sampathraj Jain
6.Sanjay Sampathraj Jain
7.Siddhant Sushil Bhandari
(Respondents 4 to 7 brought on record as
LRs of the deceased 1st respondent vide
Court order dated 19.04.2023 made in
CMP Nos.5511, 5513 and 5514 of 2023) ... Respondents
(Cause Title accepted vide court order dated
04.10.2019 made in CMP No.21101 of 2019
in CRP SR No.113976/2019)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3406 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the order and decree dated 02.08.2019 made in
I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.218 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimabtore.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mukunthan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.N.Krishna Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Subramanian
For RR2 and 3
R.1 – died
RR 4 to 7 – Not ready in notice
ORDER
A suit was filed for declaration that the power of attorney executed by
the original plaintiff in favour of one Gunavathi dated 28.03.2005 and the
consequential settlement deed executed by Gunavathi in favour of the
mother of the plaintiff dated 26.08.2005 and the power of attorney executed
by the third defendant in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 are not true and
genuine, in any event, not binding on the plaintiffs.
2. In the suit, the original plaintiff died and his mother was impleaded
as a legal representative of the plaintiff. She was not brought on record in
her own capacity, but only in the capacity of a legal representative. She
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3406 of 2019
filed detailed written statement and pursuance thereof, took out an
application to examine the power of attorney, attesting witnesses as well as
the agent as per the document dated 02.06.2005.
3. Mr.S.Mukunthan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners would submit that this Court had already held in CRP
Nos.172 and 173 of 2014 that the plaintiffs will not be entitled to let in any
further evidence and therefore, the order of the trial Court in allowing the
application amounts to re-litigation.
4. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the persons who are sought to be examined are those
inextricably connected to the documents impugned in the suit and the
evidence is vital to the case. He would submit that the order directing Vinod
Sampatraj Jain @ S.Vinodhkumar, who was the original plaintiff, could not
be held against the mother because Vinod Sampatraj Jain @
S.Vinodhkumar, himself passed away and the mother was brought on
record as his legal representative.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3406 of 2019
5. I have carefully gone through the records and heard the
submissions on either side.
6. Here is a case where the registered documents are impugned. The
plaintiff had filed an application to cross examine D.W.1 to mark certain
original documents. That process was completed. However, he passed away
pending the lis. Therefore, the mother came on record as one of his legal
representatives.
7. The mother filed an independent written statement as she was
impleaded as third defendant. As to whether the legal representative can
take a higher defence is a matter which has to be gone through at the time
of trial. Nonetheless, the written statement has been received. In support of
her submission, she wanted to examine those connected with the
proceedings. The suit was initiated some time in the year 2007 and is still
languishing even after 16 years.
8. The processual jurisprudence has taken away the vitality of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3406 of 2019
substantive reliefs which the parties would have otherwise obtained by now.
9. I do not want to keep the proceedings pending or snuff out the
opportunity to the parties to bring in evidence before the Court. After all, the
matter is not pending at the stage of appeal, but, is still at the stage of trial.
Therefore, the question of filling up lacuna in the evidence already recorded
would not arise. Nonetheless, I have to take into consideration the prejudice
that would be caused to the petitioners on account of the delay in the
proceedings.
10. Therefore I asked Mr.R.Subramanian as to the date on which he
will produce the witnesses so as to enable the plaintiffs to cross examine
them. He states that the evidence can be opened on 21.08.2023.
Accordingly, the evidence can be opened on 21.08.2023 and evidence
should be closed after cross examination on 25.08.2023. If the witnesses are
not present, the Court will not wait for them and the evidence will be closed.
Judgment must be pronounced in the suit on or before 30.09.2023.
Thereafter, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3406 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,
sr
Coimbatore is directed to submit a Report before this Court regarding the
disposal of the suit in O.S.No.218 of 2007.
11. With the above findings and observations, the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed. .
18.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sr
To
The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
CRP No.3406 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
