Madras High Court

In Both Crps vs T.V.Sundaram Iyengar And Sons Limited on 8 January, 2025

                                                                  C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 08.01.2025

                                                    CORAM :

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN


                                         C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024
                                        and C.M.P.Nos.29155 & 29159 of 2024

                     In both CRPs.
                     V.G.Thualasingam                                          .. Petitioner



                                                        Vs

                     1.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited,
                     Represented by its Managing Director,
                     Madurai.


                     2.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited,
                     Represented by its Branch Manager,
                     Villupuram.


                     3.TVS Mobility Private Limited,
                     Represented by its Managing Director,
                     No.10, Jawahar Road,
                     Chokkikulam, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.                         .. Respondents



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/9
                                                                              C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

                     COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227

                     of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 30.09.2024 in

                     I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2014 passed by the learned

                     Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Villupuram.

                                        In both CRPs.

                                        For Petitioner       : Mr.S.Natarajan

                                        For Respondents       : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar


                                                   COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions challenge the order of the learned

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram in I.A.Nos.8 & 9

of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2014, dated 30.09.2024.

2.The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff.

3. O.S.No.78 of 2014 is a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.20,00,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

The plaintiff pleads that he had purchased a vehicle bearing Registration

No.TN-32C-2473 from the defendants. The defendants had given

assurance that the vehicle would provide a 4.5 kilo meters per litre fuel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

efficiency. However, while operating the vehicle, the plaintiff came to

know that the vehicle has given only 2.8 kilometers per litre. Feeling

aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff had initiated proceedings before

the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The Commission

dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the parties to approach the

Civil Court. Hence, the suit for damages. Summons were served. The

defendants have filed their written statement.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff marked Ex.A15. A

communication allegedly said to have been issued by the 2 nd defendant.

This document stated that the vehicle has to undergo the change of the

following parts:

(i) Timer

(ii) High pressure tube

When this document was confronted to D.W.1 who represents the

defendants, he denied having any knowledge of the same. Hence, the

plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2019 to summon the Sales

Executive of the defendants and two mechanics in the company of the

defendants for the purpose of substantiating Ex.A15. This application https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 26.07.2019. The order was

confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3654 of 2019 dated 22.06.2022.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of

2024, seeking to reopen and recall his side evidence for the purpose of

marking the proof affidavit that had been sworn to by the defendants in

C.C.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission. After receipt of a counter, those applications came to be

dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Hence, these revisions.

6. When the matter came up for admission, I requested

Mr.S.Natarajan to serve the entire set of papers on Mr.K.R.Mahesh, the

counsel who represents the respondents in the Court below. Service was

effected and the respondents are represented by Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar.

7. I heard Mr.S.Natarajan for the civil revision petitioner and

Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar for the respondents. I have gone through the

entire records.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

8. Both the counsel reiterated the contentions that had placed

before the Court below.

9. It is clear from the narration of the fact that the plaintiff has

already marked Ex.A15 namely, the document allegedly issued by the 2nd

defendant to him. This document had been denied by the defendant's

witness during the course of his examination. The plaintiff now wants to

substantiate the proof of Ex.A15 by filing the proof affidavit filed by the

defendants in C.C.No.36 of 2009 before the State Consumer Dispute

Redressal Commission.

10. This has absolutely nothing to do with the previous order

passed by the learned Additional Principal District Judge at Villupuram

in I.A.No.2 of 2019, which was confirmed by this Court in

C.R.P.No.3654 of 2019, dated 22.06.2022. That was an application,

where the plaintiff wanted to examine the witness/employees of the

defendants. Now he wants to examine himself to mark the proof

affidavit. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants can deny the filing of

the proof affidavits by them before the State Consumer Dispute

Redressal Commission.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

11. When the parties are at trial, full liberty must be granted to

them to place all the available records before the Court. Whether the

document is relevant is a matter, which the learned Trial Judge, will

decide at the time of marshalling of evidence before pronouncement of

the judgment. For the mere fact that C.R.P.No.3654 of 2019 was

dismissed by this Court does not mean that the plaintiff should be

disallowed from filing the proof affidavit. Issue of res judicata does not

arise, when it comes to procedural matters in the nature of reopen and

recall applications.

12. At that stage, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar points out that he has got

the certified copy of the RC book, which he wants to produce before the

Trial Court. If I were to relegate the defendants to file applications to

reopen and recall for the purpose of marking the document, it only add to

the delay. The suit has been pending for eleven years. It is time enough

that the suit to be finally disposed of.

13. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following

directions:

(i) The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

Track Court), Villupuram in I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024 are

set aside;

(ii) The plaintiff is entitled to mark the proof affidavit filed by the

defendants before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in

C.C.No.36 of 2009 on the next date of hearing.

(iii) After the evidence of the plaintiff is over, the defendants shall

cross-examine the plaintiff, if they so desire, on the said document.

(iv) It should be immediately followed by the defendants entering

the witness box through D.W.1 and marking the RC book of the vehicle

bearing Registration No.TN-32C-2473. The plaintiff shall right away

cross-examine the defendants.

(v) The learned Trial Judge is requested to pass orders in the suit

in O.S.No.78 of 2014 on or before 28.02.2025 and submit a report to this

Court in compliance thereof.

14. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petitions stand

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024

15. Post these revisions on 05.03.2025 for reporting compliance.

08.01.2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No

Note to Office: Issue order copy today (8.1.2025)

The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Villupuram.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.5213 & 5215 of 2024