Madras High Court
Unknown vs Thankappan on 20 July, 2023
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD) Nos.10272 of 2018 and 12826 of 2022
in
C.R.P(MD) No.2295 of 2018
C.R.P(MD) No. 2295 of 2018:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabapuram @ Thuckalay,
Kanniyakumari District.
3. Ayyappan (Father's name not known)
Former Tahsildar,
Vilavancode,
P.A to District Collector,
Collectorate, Nagercoil.
4. Jose (Father's name not known)
Former Revenue Inspector,
Now working at Cable T.V. Section,
Collectorate, Nagercoil.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
5. Senthil Kumar (Father's name not known)
Now working at V.A.O. Kothanalloor Village,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District.
6. Mariappan (Father's name not known)
Firka Surveyor, Vilavancode,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
7. Devaraj (Father's name not known)
Taluk Surveyor, Vilavancode,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
8. The Tahsildar,
Vilavancode Taluk,
@ Kulithurai,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
9. The Village Administrative Officer,
Nattalam Post,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants
-vs-
Thankappan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.08.2018 passed in
I.A.No.273/2018 in O.S.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District
Munsiff Court, Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.C.Godwin
C.R.P(MD) No. 2296 of 2018:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabapuram @ Thuckalay,
Kanniyakumari District.
3. Ayyappan (Father's name not known)
Former Tahsildar,
Vilavancode,
P.A to District Collector,
Collectorate, Nagercoil.
4. Jose (Father's name not known)
Former Revenue Inspector,
Now working at Cable T.V.Section,
Collectorate, Nagercoil.
5. Senthil Kumar (Father's name not known)
Now working at V.A.O. Kothanalloor Village,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
6. Mariappan (Father's name not known)
Firka Surveyor, Vilavancode,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
7. Devaraj (Father's name not known)
Taluk Surveyor, Vilavancode,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
8. The Tahsildar,
Vilavancode Taluk,
@ Kulithurai,
Kuzhithurai Post,
Kanniyakumari District.
9. The Village Administrative Officer,
Nattalam Post,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanniyakumari District.
... Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants
-vs-
Thankappan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.08.2018 passed in
I.A.No.274 of 2018 in O.S.No.105 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District
Munsiff Court, Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.C.Godwin
COMMON ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal
order dated 14.08.2018 passed in I.A.Nos.273 and 274 of 2018 in O.S.No.105
of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants, and the respondent
herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court.
3. The short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petitions
are that, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.105 of 2014 on the
file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Kuzhithurai, for the relief of
declaration and possession over the suit property where the Anjeli tree is
standing. It appears from the records that, when the matter was posted for
judgment, the defendants had filed an application to re-open their side
evidence, and also seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents,
such as, certified copy of Charge Sheet, Rough sketch and Mahazar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
4. However, the said application was stoutly objected by the plaintiff on
the ground that these documents are not the revenue records to prove the case,
and that these documents have been filed only when the matter was reserved
for judgment and therefore, contended that this application filed only to
prolong the trial. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application.
5. The learned trial Judge, after considering either side submission, has
rejected the application of the defendants on the ground that these documents
namely, the criminal Court records are no way useful for deciding the civil
case.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Judge, the defendants/
Government are before this Court. The learned Government Advocate
appearing for the petitioners would submit that the very order of the learned
trial Judge rejecting the application on the ground that these records are only
the criminal Court records is without any rationale, as they wanted to
establish before this Court that, the very suit has been instituted only
subsequent to the registration of the FIR. It is also the submission of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
learned Government Advocate that after filing the F.I.R, prosecuting agencies
have laid the Charge Sheet. Therefore, only to establish such factum before
the Court, they wanted to mark these documents. The learned Government
Advocate has also invited the attention of this Court about the written
statement, in which, in para No.l0, they have pleaded about the registration of
the F.I.R.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent stoutly
objected the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the petitioners and would submit that the very filing of the application at the
stage of trial, and that too, when the suit is only for the relief of declaration,
the filing of criminal Court records is no way relevant.
8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side.
9. It is settled principle of law that the relevancy and admissibility of
the documents cannot be gone into at the threshold, and could only be
considered after trial. No doubt, the petitioners has filed an application only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
at the stage when the suit posted for judgment. But, from the contention of the
learned Government Advocate what emerges is that, though they referred the
FIR in the counter statement, subsequently those FIR culminated into a
Charge Sheet. Therefore, those documents as rightly contended are very much
essential to place it before the Court to establish that the suit is an
afterthought subsequent to the filing of the FIR.
10. Therefore, considering the submissions of the learned Government
Advocate, this Court is of the firm view that the very prayer of the petitioners/
defendants seeking leave of the Court to file the additional documents cannot
be shut at the threshold. Furthermore, when the petitioners/defendants prayed
in respect of the receipt of the additional documents, that can be place it
before the Court only after re-opening their side evidence. Therefore, this
Court finds some ground to interfere with the orders of the learned trial
Judge. Thus, the orders of the learned trial Judge is set aside.
11. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed.
However, considering the nature of the suit and also taking cognizance of the
fact that the petitioners/defendants filed application only at the stage of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
judgment, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose O.S.No.105 of 2014
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Principal District Munsif Court,
Kuzhithurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2295 and 2296 of 2018
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
