Madras High Court
Janaki vs Mahadevan on 5 August, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
1.Janaki
2.Kandasamy
3.Gopinathan
4.Pushpa ... Petitioners
vs
1.Mahadevan
2.Jeevanandham ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the fair and decretal order made in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in A.S. No.2 of 2021
dated 01.04.2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.
For petitioners : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy
ORDER
This revision has been filed against the order dated 01.04.2024 passed
by the learned Sub Judge, Cheyyar in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in A.S. No.2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
2021, dismissing the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil
Procedure Code seeking for production of additional evidence in Appellate
Court.
2.The revision petitioners, who have filed an appeal in A.S. No.2 of
2021 against the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif,
Cheyyar in O.S. No.92 of 1997, are the applicants 2 to 5 in I.A. No.1 of
2023 in A.S. No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.
3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners' father
Thirunavukarasu is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.92 of 1997 and that
during the pendency of the above appeal, Thirunavukarasu passed away and
that his legal heirs/petitioners were brought on record in the appeal as
appellants 2 to 5.
4.The suit in O.S. No.92 of 1997 was filed by the respondents for
removal of encroachment in the housing plot and the Trial Court has decreed
the suit in favour of the respondents and that the petitioners have filed the
above I.A. No.1 of 2023 in A.S. No.2 of 2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
C.P.C. stating that during the pendency of the suit, they were unable to get
the computerised documents i.e. extract from the Town Survey Land
Register and TSLR sketch in respect of the entire layout, relating to Block
No.44 and Ward 'B' of Thiruvathipuram Town in respect of 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties in the appeal.
5.The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a counter stating that the lands
belonging to them were measuring East-West 27 feet and North-South 60
feet and that sufficient documents were filed before the Trial Court in proof
of the same and based on which the judgment and decree have been passed.
Further it was stated that the documents, sought to be marked in the appeal,
were obtained after the judgment and decree were passed by the Trial Court
and thereby, the application filed by the applicants 2 to 5 has to be rejected.
6.The Appellate Court, finding that the Original Suit was filed in the
year 1997 as O.S. No.92 of 1997 and that the judgment and decree have
been passed as early as on 03.08.2013 and that the documents sought to be
marked, were obtained only during the year 2023 and finding that the
petitioners have not complied with the requirements under Order XLI Rule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
27 of C.P.C., has dismissed the same. The Appellate Court has also held that
absolutely there is no dispute about the first defendant's ownership over the
suit properties. However, it was found that it is not the case of the
petitioners/appellants that despite diligence, the documents now sought to be
received were not within his knowledge and the same came to be known to
the petitioners/appellants subsequently. Challenging the same, this revision
has been filed.
7.Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants would submit that the
documents were obtained only in the year 2023 and thereby, this petition has
been filed.
8.Heard Mr.D.Lakshmipathy, learned counsel for the petitioners/
appellants and perused the materials available on record.
9.As rightly pointed out by the learned appellate judge that the suit
has been filed as early as in the year 1997 and the judgment and decree have
been passed on 03.08.2013. It is not the case of the petitioners that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
appellate Court had refused the documents sought to be marked in the appeal
during trial and it is also not the case of the petitioners that notwithstanding
the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced by him, after the exercise of due diligence and after
the decree was passed. The Appellate Court has rightly finding that the
petitioners have not complied with the conditions required under Order XLI
Rule 27 of C.P.C. has dismissed the petition.
10.I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this revision
petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed. No
costs.
05.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
vga
To
The Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
C.R.P. No.2714 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.14336 of 2024
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
