Madras High Court
M.Kathirvel vs Mohanraj ... 1St on 1 October, 2024
C.R.P. No. 2556 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No. 2556 of 2024
and
C.M.P. No. 13419 of 2024
M.Kathirvel ... Petitioner / Petitioner / 1st Defendant
Vs.
1. Mohanraj ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent / Plaintiff
2. Sub-Registrar
Kinathukadavu SRO
Having Office at
Coimbatore to Pollachi Main Road
Kinathukadavu ...2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the decree and decreetal order passed in I.A.
No. 4 of 2024 in O.S. No. 262 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 19.03.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Saravanan
For Respondent 1 : Mr. R.S.Govarthan
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 4 of 2024 in
O.S. No. 262 of 2017 dated 19.03.2024.
2. The civil revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The first
respondent, as the plaintiff, presented O.S. No. 262 of 2017 seeking for a
declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the first defendant
dated 17.10.2016 is void, not supported by consideration, nor accompanied by
transfer of title of delivery of possession. He also sought for permanent
injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful
possession or encumbering, alienating or creating any third party interest on
the property. A further direction was sought to the first defendant to return to
original sale deed dated 06.04.2016 executed by one Jothimani in favour of
the plaintiff and for cost.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he was in urgent requirement of sum
of Rs. 15,00,000/- in order to clear loans or dues that he owed to third parties.
He approached the first defendant for advancing the loans. The first defendant
insisted on entering into an agreement of sale and for handing over of the title
deed of the said suit property. Subsequently, he demanded that the sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
executed in his favour. The plaintiff called upon the defendant to cancel the
sale deed. However, the defendant was evading the same. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written
statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties went for trial. The
plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Thereafter, he
examined a third parties as PW2 and PW3. The matter was listed for evidence
of the defendant. Though sufficient time was granted to the defendants, he did
not let in evidence. Therefore, the evidence was closed and the matter was
listed for arguments.
5. At that stage, the defendant filed an application to reopen and the said
application was allowed. Thereafter, the first defendant examined himself as
DW1. Thereafter, the first defendant filed a memo stating that he is not
interested in examining one Nanda Gopala Karthikeyan who is the scribe for
the sale deed. On the basis of this memo, the evidence of the defendant was
closed and the matter was listed for arguments. Therefore, he took out an
application to reopen the suit for the purpose of examining further witnesses.
The said application was numbered as I.A. No. 4 of 2024. After receipt of
counter from the respondent, the Trial Court proceeded and dismiss the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application. Hence, this revision.
6. Heard Mr. P.Saravanan for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.
R.S.Govarthan for the first respondent.
7. Mr. P.Saravanan would submit that while the 1st defendant had given
up the examination for the scribe, he has two other witnesses whom he was
examined in the suit. In addition, he wants to examine the jurisdictional VAO
and Deputy Tahsildar in the suit proceedings. He states that two attesting
witnesses to the sale deed, namely one Mr. P. Easwaran and one
Shanmugavadivu are to be examined on his side.
8. Mr. R.S.Govarthan would submit that the entire idea of the plaintiff is
to drag on the matter and not give a disposal to the suit. He states that the suit
is in the advanced stage of arguments and therefore, no indulgence should be
given to the defendant.
9. I have gone through the records and carefully analysed the
submissions of both sides.
10. The suit is for a declaration of the sale deed is null and void and not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
supported by consideration. In this proceeding, the question of examining the
VAO or the Tahsildar does not arise for a moment's consideration. The plea of
the plaintiff is that the sale deed was executed as a security for the loan
amount. Hence, the evidence of the Revenue Department Officials is not
germane. However, the examination of attesting witnesses might throw some
light in the issues raised before the Court. Therefore, if an opportunity is
denied, as done by the Trial Court, there is every possibility that in case the
suit goes against the defendant, he would raise the very same plea before the
lower Appellate Court and file an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the
Code. In order to give a fair opportunity to the defendants and since most of
the proceedings have taken place during the time when the COVID-19
pandemic was prevalent, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the
learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the civil revision petition is
allowed on the condition set forth hereunder:
(i) The order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge in
I.A. No. 4 of 2024 in O.S. No. 262 of 2017 dated 19.03.2024 is set
aside.
(ii) The first defendant shall produce Mr. P. Easwaran and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Shanmugavadivu on 15.10.2024.
(iii) Mr. R.S.Govarthan assures that immediately on completion of the
chief examination of the aforesaid persons, his counterpart will cross
examined them.
(iv) The Court shall grant time to the parties to complete the cross
examination by 17.10.2024. In any event, after the evidence is closed,
the arguments should be heard and the judgment should be pronounced
on or before 30.10.2024.
12. The first defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff on
or before 14.10.2024. The defendant will be permitted to let in evidence on the
aforesaid persons only on payment of the aforesaid amounts. In case, the
amount of Rs.15,000/- is not paid, the benefit given in this revision will not
enure in favour of the defendants.
13. The learned V Additional Judge is requested to act on the web copy
of the order that can be produced either party and not insist on the certified
copy of the order.
14. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
pal
Note: Upload order copy today.
To
The V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
pal
01.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
