Madras High Court
Datchayani vs J.Padmini on 22 November, 2024
C.R.P.No.4664 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4664 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.26068 of 2024
1.Datchayani
2.Aarudhra .. Petitioners
Versus
1.J.Padmini
2.T.J.Divya
3.T.J.Venkatesh .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 25.10.2024 in IA
No.5/2024 in OS No.102/2020 on the file of the XXII Additional Judge,
City Civil Court at Allikulam, Chennai-3.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.Sameer Shah
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the
learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in
O.S.No.102 of 2020 dated 25.10.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit.
O.S.No.102 of 2020 was originally preferred before this court as CS.No.66
of 2011. The said suit seeks for declaration that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the property, for recovery of possession and mense
profits.
3. A written statement had been filed. Issues were framed. Trial
commenced. The parties entered the witness box and evidence had been
completed. At that stage, for the purpose of proving the relationship
between one Lakshmipathy and the first defendant, the defendants examined
one D.Helen as DW3.
4. During the course of evidence, it was suggested by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs to DW3 that she has no proof that she is residing in
the address she claims to be inhabiting. Hence, the defendants took out an
application in I.A.No.5 of 2024 seeking to recall DW3 for the purpose of
marking her Aadhar Card (Aadhar Card No.XXXX XXXX 1785) as an
exhibit in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs stating that the said
witness DW3 has absolutely no knowledge about the case. They added in
order to fill the lacuna in evidence, without a supporting application to
receive additional document, the present petition had been filed. Hence, it
deserves dismissal.
6. The learned Trial Judge agreed with the contentions of the
defendants, she dismissed the petition, but not for the reasons that had been
pleaded by the plaintiffs. She held that the burden is on the plaintiffs to
prove DW3 is not residing there, but elsewhere. Hence, this revision.
7. I have heard Mr.M.S.Subramanian for the civil revision petitioners
and Mr.Sameer Shah for the respondents.
8. The narration of the facts shows that the defendants want to prove
that first defendant had a subsisting relationship with the deceased
Lakshmipathy and to that effect, had examined an alleged neighbour, by
name, D.Helen.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Mr.M.S.Subramanian invites my attention to the evidence of DW3,
where a specific question put in the cross examination that, DW3 is not
residing in the property which she claims to be. Hence, the defendants have
filed an application to reopen the evidence. Mr.M.S.Subramanian states that
apart from this document and supporting oral evidence of DW3, the
defendants have no other evidence. After the examination of the said
witness, the defendant's evidence would be closed.
10. Mr.Sameer Shah states that no affidavit has been filed to receive
the additional document. He had opposed the said petition on the same
ground before the Trial Court. He states that the suit has been pending for
the past 13 years and the entire idea of the defendants is only to drag on the
matter and continue to squat over the property.
11. I have carefully considered the arguments on both sides.
12. This is a suit for a declaration of title and for recovery of
possession. Serious rights over immovable property are involved in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A court should give maximum opportunity to the parties in order to
establish their case. I am not in agreement with the plea of filling up of
lacuna because the parties are still at trial. It is not a case where the evidence
had been concluded, a judgment had been rendered and at the appellate
stage, it had been discovered that DW3 had not produced her address proof.
13. As pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, though the burden of
proof is on the plaintiffs to show that DW3 is no way connected to the
defendants' family, still the defendants want to substantiate the residence of
DW3 by filing her Aadhar Card.
14. In order to give an opportunity to the defendants, I am inclined to
allow this revision. At the same time, I have to take note of the plea of
Mr.Sameer Shah that the suit is pending for the past 13 years. This plea can
be addressed by giving an appropriate direction to the learned XXII
Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai to dispose of the suit itself.
15. According I am passing the following orders:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) the order in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2020 dated
25.10.2024 is set aside.
(ii) the defendants shall ensure that DW3 appears before the XXII
Additional City Civil Court on 28.11.2024. On that date, DW3 shall depose
on the Aadhar Card and produce the same. There is no necessity to delay the
matter further by asking the defendants to file another application to receive
the evidence.
(iii) DW3 shall be permitted to file the Aadhar Card bearing
No.XXXX XXXX 1785 and the Court shall receive the document as exhibit
on the side of the defendants.
(iv) The evidence of the defendants shall be closed on 28.11.2024,
after the plaintiffs have complete the cross examination of DW3 on that
date.
(v) the learned Trial Judge is requested to pronounce the judgment in
the suit on or before 19.12.2024. She shall communicate the order of
compliance to this Court on 20.12.2024.
(vi) The learned Trial Judge is requested to act on a web copy of this
Order. She need not wait for a certified copy in order to proceed further on
28.11.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Call this matter for recording the compliance on 21.12.2024.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.11.2024
nl
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
To
The XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Allikulam, Chennai-3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
22.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
