Madras High Court
T.D.Ravindran vs T.K.Devanatha Reddiar on 28 October, 2024
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
T.D.Ravindran .. Petitioner in
all C.R.Ps.
Vs.
1. T.K.Devanatha Reddiar
2. N.Gowri
3. D.Muthunarayanan
4. C.Laitha
5. R.Amarajothi
6. M.Revathi
7. Priyadarshini
8. Preethika Respondents in
9. Karunandham .. all C.R.Ps.
Prayer: Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order dated 27.08.2024 made in I.A.Nos.123, 124 & 125 of
2024 in O.S.No.149 of 2018 on the file of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.
For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj
For the Respondents : Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
For Mr.M.R.Thangavel
for Respondent-1
Mr.V.Balamurugane
for Respondent-3
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
ORDER
A sting operation conducted by the son on the father is sought to
be introduced as a document in the suit.
2. O.S.No.149 of 2018 is a suit for partition and separate
possession. Pleadings had been completed. The parties went for a trial
and the trial is also over. It is now at the stage of arguments. At that
stage, the learned Judge had suggested, considering the age of the
father and the relationship between the parties, that they negotiate a
settlement. In accordance to the views expressed by the learned trial
Judge, the plaintiff seems to have approached his father, the first
defendant. During the course of conversation, he had surreptitiously
recorded the conversation that had taken place between him and his
father. Thereafter, he claims that the first defendant father had made
certain admissions during the course of the conversation and hence,
they should be received in evidence.
3. In order to produce the said conversation before the Court, he
filed I.A.No.123 of 2024 to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
I.A.No.124 of 2024 to recall himself and I.A.No.125 of 2024 to
condone the delay in filing the documents, namely transcriptions of the
conversation between himself and the first defendant. The learned
Judge received a counter from the first respondent and proceeded to
dismiss the said petitions. Against which, the present civil revision
petitions.
4. I heard Mr.R.Gururaj for the civil revision petitioner,
Mr.A.K.Shriram for the first respondent and Mr.Balamurugane for the
third respondent.
5. The narration of the aforesaid facts would go to show that the
document which is sought to be introduced by the plaintiff had come
into being on account of a noble suggestion that had been made by
the learned District Judge to settle the matter. It is not open to a party
to take advantage of the suggestion made by the Court to settle the
issue, to create records and that too, surreptitiously. I have to
appreciate the audacity of the plaintiff, having done so, to come up
with an application hoping that the Court will receive the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
documents.
6. Mr.Gururaj relies upon Magraj Patodia v. R.K.Birla [1971 (2) SCR
118] to urge that even if an evidence is improperly procured, the same
is admissible in evidence subject to its relevancy and proof. Therefore,
he argued that the plaintiff is entitled to introduce the said record. The
said plea is stoutly opposed by Mr.A.K.Shriram.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions and have gone
through the judgment.
8. Here is a suit presented in the year 2020, which is suffering
an order of this Court, for disposal at an early date. On account of the
suggestions made by the Court, the plaintiff has created the document
as aforesaid. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by
Mr.Gururaj applies to a situation where documents which had come
into force prior to the suit, though improperly procured. This
proposition does not apply to the facts of the present case. This is
especially so when the first defendant, namely the father, had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
entered into the witness box. It is always open to Mr.Gururaj to take
advantage of the failure of the first defendant to enter into the witness
box and if it is permissible to request the Court to draw adverse
inference against the first defendant.
9. Neither the trial Court nor can this Court be a party to an act
of a litigant to procure a document surreptitiously under the noble
suggestion made by the learned Judge to settle a family issue. Further
more, the order to reopen, recall and to let in additional documents
are discretionary in nature and unless and until discretionary power
has been utilised in a perverse manner, it is not subject to revision. I
do not find any perversity in the order. I see no reason to interfere
with the order. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are dismissed.
This Court adhere to the directions of this Court for expeditious
disposal of the suit without any demur. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.22663 of 2024 is also dismissed.
28.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J
(kpl)
To
The I Additional District and Sessions Court
Cuddalore.
C.R.P.Nos.4131 to 4133 of 2024
28.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
