Madras High Court
C.Krishnan vs C.Murugan on 30 March, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3696 of 2023 in C.R.P.(MD)No.805 of 2023
1.C.Krishnan
2.C.Ramadass .. Petitioners in both the C.R.Ps.
Versus
C.Murugan .. Respondent in both the C.R.Ps.
Prayer in both the C.R.Ps.:- Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.09.2022, made in I.A.Nos.4 and 5
of 2022 in O.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Court (FTC), Nagercoil.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan
in both the C.R.Ps.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
in both the C.R.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal
order dated 28.09.2022, in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022 in O.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file
of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.50 of 2010, on the file
of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Nagercoil. Originally, the
aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent herein as O.S.No.12 of 2009, on the file of
the Principal District Court, Nagercoil. The suit has been filed for partition of the
suit schedule properties. The petitioners and the respondent are brothers. In the suit,
the respondent has not filed any documents as exhibits.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that after the trial was concluded and
when the case was posted for arguments, the respondent/plaintiff has filed written
argument on 04.11.2022. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4 of 2022 to
recall D.W.1 for cross-examination and I.A.No.5 of 2022 to grant leave to mark
additional documents. The trial Court has rejected the applications, vide the fair and
decreetal order, dated 28.09.2022, by stating that the petitioners herein/defendants
were attempting to drag on the proceedings.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the aforesaid
Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners have been rejected on the ground
that the petitioners were attempting to drag on the disposal of O.S.No.50 of 2010, the
trial Court has suo motu reopened the evidence of P.W.1, and permitted to cross-
examine him on 02.03.2023 and 20.03.2023 and has also allowed the
respondent/plaintiff to mark seven documents. It is submitted that since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
petitioners have also cross-examined the plaintiff's side witness and the Court itself
has allowed the respondent/plaintiff to let in fresh evidence and also mark additional
evidence, the impugned order passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022 is liable to be
interfered with.
5. The present Civil Revision Petitions are opposed by the respondent/plaintiff
on the ground that these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed long after the orders
came to be passed in the Interlocutory Applications i.e., on 28.09.2022. That apart, it
is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had filed I.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 2022, which
were allowed on 20.01.2023, for re-opening the evidence on behalf of the
respondent/plaintiff and for receiving additional documents.
6. It is submitted that merely the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed to mark
the documents, pursuant to the order passed in I.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 2022, the challenge
to the impugned order passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022 is belated, which should
not be allowed, as there would be a further delay in pronouncement of judgment in
the suit.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
8.The trial Court has exercised the discretion against the
petitioners/defendants, by rejecting the application for re-opening the defendants'
side witnesses and for granting leave to mark additional documents, vide impugned
order, dated 28.09.2022, in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022. However, later, the trial Court
itself has allowed the similar applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff in
I.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 2023 on 20.01.2023. The only reason given while allowing the
applications is, on perusal of the records, the Court found that the documents related
to the suit schedule property, which were not filed earlier and the case was suo motu
re-opened and therefore, the applications to receive the additional documents and to
recall the defendants' side witnesses were allowed.
9. The relevant portion of the said order from the Court Website reads as
under:-
''I.A.Nos.7 to 9 of 2022 are allowed. Recall PW1 by 31.01.2023.
I.A.No.7 of 2022 – Enquiry is heard. This is a petition to reopen the
case for receiving and marking some additional documents. The petitioner
filed the original suit for partition. After trial, the case was posted for
judgment. As this Court on perusal of records found that the records related
with the suit properties are not filed, the case was suo motu reopened. Under
such circumstance, the petitioner has come forward with this petition along
with petitions to receive additional documents and to recall PW1 to mark
those documents. The documents now produced by the petitioner are
necessary for deciding the issues effectively. No prejudice would be caused
to the respondent in receiving these documents. There is no valid objection
in the counter. Hence, this Petition is allowed.
I.A.No.8 of 2022 – Heard. Connected reopen petition in I.A.No.7 of
2022 is allowed. Hence, for the very same reason stated in that order, this
petition is also allowed.
I.A.No.9 of 2022 – Enquiry is heard. The connected reopen Petition in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
I.A.No.7 of 2022 is allowed. Hence, for the very same reasons stated in that
order, this petition is also allowed.''
10. That being the case and considering the fact that the respondent/plaintiff
was allowed to be examined and thereafter, cross-examined, I see no reason why the
documents, which the petitioners/defendants wanted to mark should not be allowed.
Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners shall stand
allowed with a direction to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Nagercoil, to permit the petitioners/defendants to mark those seven documents,
which they propose to mark by filing I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2022. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11. Since the suit is of the year 2010, the trial Court shall endeavour to
pronounce the judgment and decree within a period of six months from today, after
giving sufficient opportunity to both parties to argue the case.
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No 30.03.2023
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Common Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.805 and 806 of 2023
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
