Madras High Court
D. Selvam @ Prahalathan vs U.Rajendran on 6 June, 2023
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 6/6/2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Civil Revision Petition PD Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
and
C.M.P.Nos.7341 and 7344 of 2023
1. D. Selvam @ Prahalathan
2. Ravi @ D.Devanarayanan
3. D. Udhayakumar
4. S. Kuselan
5. K. Manivannan
6. Anbu @ K. Parthasarathy
7. K. Gunasekaran
8. Dharmarajan
9. Me.E.Jayaraman ... Petitioners
Vs
1. U.Rajendran
2. Shanmugam ... Respondents
Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the fair and decreetal order dated 8/3/2023 passed in
I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in O.S.No.410 of 2011 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif at Alandur.
For Petitioner ... Ms.R.Hemalatha
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
These revisions are directed against the order, dated 8/3/2023, passed
in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in O.S.No.410 of 2011, on the file of the
learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur.
2. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.410 of 2011, on the file of the
learned District Munsif, Alandur, seeking injunction simplicitor against
the respondents. After full fledged trial, the said suit was posted for
judgment. At this juncture, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.2 of 2023,
to reopen the plaintiffs side evidence, under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and I.A.No.3 of 2023, under Order 7 Rule 1 A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to receive certain documents. Both the
petitions were dismissed by way of the impugned common order, dated
8/3/2023.
3. Heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
appeals which are proposed to be filed are essential for resolving the
dispute and thereby, even though, he has moved an application at a
belated stage, documents have to be received by reopening the evidence
of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned any cogent reasons as
to why they could not file the documents at an earlier point of time, i.e.,
during the course of trial and thereby, sought for dismissal of the
petitions.
6. The petitioner has filed the Suit in the year 2011, issues were
framed in the year 2012 and trial has commenced in the year 2013. After
closure of plaintiffs evidence, defendants evidence was commenced in
the month of September 2022, plaintiffs and defendants have completed
their respective arguments by December 2022 and after hearing the
arguments, trial Court has posted the case for judgment on 10/2/2023.
However, on 9/2/2023, the petitioners have filed this application to
reopen and receive the documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
7. The petitioners who have filed the suit is expected to file all the
documents along with the plaintiffs which enables the
respondents/defendants to give defence and file suitable written
statements basing on which trial Court would have framed appropriate
issue, thereby, trial can be taken up basing on those issues.
8. The petitioners/plaintiffs have examined the plaintiff side
witnesses and also cross examined the defendants witnesses. Both sides
have also filed number of documents. Once the pleadings have
completed and issues were framed and when the trial is in progress, no
further documents be allowed to be produced, as it affects the very course
of trial. However, in case, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the
documents, the Court can receive the documents filed at a later stage
also. It is the case where the documents which are proposed to file which
are available with the plaintiffs from 2009. Order 7 Rule 1 A of the Code
of Civil Procedure permits any of the parties to file documents during the
course of trial. However, the petitioners did not chose to file them for
the reasons known to them. Once the case was posted for arguments, the
petitioners seek for reopening of the case, the petitioners are expected to
make out such a case that the documents proposed to be filed are so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
relevant for the dispute before the Court and also shall make out a strong
case that though these documents were not available with them and
thereby, they could not file them earlier, during the course of trial.
9. On going through the affidavit filed by the petitioners in the trial
Court, as rightly observed by the learned Judge in the impugned order,
the petitioners have failed to mention any cogent reasons as to why they
could not file these documents at an earlier point of time.
10. Considering the circumstances, trial Court has rightly come to
conclusion by giving cogent reasons for dismissing the applications in
not entertaining both the petitions filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
11. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
6/6/2023
Index :yes/no
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mvs.
To: The Additional District Munsif, Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
Dr.D.NAGARJUN,J
mvs.
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1003 and 1007 of 2023
6/6/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
