Madras High Court
John Joseph vs Donalid Doni on 6 March, 2025
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.2571 of 2021
John Joseph ... Petitioner in
all C.R.Ps.
Vs
1.Donalid Doni
Rayappan (Died)
2.Rajammal
3.Leela
4.Sundar
5.Rathi alias Jerin Radha Bai ... Respondents in
all C.R.Ps.
Common Prayer : These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section
227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order in
I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019 in O.S.No.76 of 2018 on the file of Sub Judge,
Eraniel, dated 18.04.2019.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi
(In all C.R.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.F.X.Eugene
(In all C.R.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order
and decreetal order in I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019 in O.S.No.76 of 2018 on
the file of Sub Judge, Eraniel, dated 18.04.2019.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed applications in
I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019, seeking to re-open, recall and receive the
documents. The trial Court dismissed the above applications by an order
dated 18.04.2019. Against which, the petitioner has filed these present
Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 2018 seeking for declaration
and permanent injunction. The respondents also filed written statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
and counter claim with a prayer to declare the partition deed as null and
void and also were prayed to declare the mutation proceedings of the
Thasildar, Kalkulam as null and void. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further stated that before the trial Court, the evidence of both
sides was over and the suit was posted for arguments. He further
submitted that the petitioner has traced some documents to prove his title
and sought permission to allow him to file the above documents to show
his title. The petitioner wanted to file nine documents. Some of the
documents are in Malayalam and he has also wanted to file the Tamil
version and the other documents need to be filed is old settlement copy
of survey number 10995, letter's of Colachel Village, land tax receipt and
encumbrance certificate. He further submitted that he wanted to file the
deposition of the Office Assistant of Colachel Sub Registrar's Office, in
which he registered documents, which is in a damaged condition and he
had a copy with him and he wanted to file the same. He further argued
that he traced some documents from his ancestors and in order to prove
his title, he wanted to file the same and which is highly necessary to
determine the title.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.K.Velusamy Vs.
N.Palanisamy reported in AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 1000, wherein it was
held as follows:
“14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate
and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately
after the completion of evidence and then proceed to
judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express
provision for re-opening the evidence to examine a fresh
witness or for recalling any witness for further examination.
But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence
and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in
that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which
he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard
to the conduct or action of the other party comes into
existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power
under section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such
evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of
justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to
impose.
15. The learned counsel for respondent contended that
once arguments are commenced, there could be no re-opening
of evidence or recalling of any witness. This contention is
raised by extending the convention that once arguments are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
concluded and the case is reserved for judgment, the court will
not entertain any interlocutory application for any kind of
relief. The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the
ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law)
does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is
reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if
interests of justice require the court to do something or take
note of something, the discretion to do those things does not
disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either
fully or partly. The convention that no application should be
entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case
is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket
formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or
extra-ordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and
to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation
recognized with reference to exercise of power under section
151 of the Code. Be that as it may. In this case, the
applications were made before the conclusion of the
arguments.
16. Neither the trial court nor the High court
considered the question whether it was a fit case for exercise
of discretion under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the
Code. They have not considered whether the evidence sought
to be produced would either assist in clarifying the evidence
led on the issues or lead to a just and effective adjudication.
Both the courts have mechanically dismissed the application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
only on the ground that the matter was already at the stage of
final arguments and the application would have the effect of
delaying the proceedings.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a
judgment of this Court in P.Vellur Vs. P.Pandian (Died) & Others
reported in 2020-4 L.W. 890, wherein it was held as follows:
“12.As pointed out earlier, the petitioner has got
reason for getting opportunity to cross examine DW-1 after
the additional issue relating to counter claim was framed.
This should be given as a matter of right. The trial Court
dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner to recall
the witness on the ground that such power cannot be exercised
by the Court at the instance of the plaintiff. After dismissing
the application to recall DW-1, the lower Court has dismissed
the petition to reopen the case on the ground that the petition
to recall DW-1 was dismissed by the Court. The power of the
Court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall any witness is
absolute and that it can be exercised either on its own motion
or on the application of any of the parties to the lis. The
language employed under Order 18 Rule 17 does not prevent
the Court from exercising the power to recall the witness at
the instance of plaintiff or defendant. In the present case, the
peculiar circumstances warrant such power being exercised
by the Court to render justice.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
only ground for rejection by the trial Court is the above applications are
filed belatedly and also filed the same in order to fill up the lacuna and
no other reasons were found in the order of the trial Court and therefore,
prayed to allow him to file the additional documents and to mark the
same through P.W.1.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that
the suit was filed in the year 2018 and it is pending for long time. The
documents, which are sought to be marked, are not mentioned in the
plaint. When the evidence of both sides was over and when the matter
was posted for argument, the petitioner came with these applications and
he has not stated any reason for the delay in filing the above applications
and it is his duty to explain the delay. There is no plausible reason that
why he has not produced the documents in earlier occasion. The above
applications are highly belated and he has also wanted to examine P.W.1
and no reasons have been stated for the delay in filing the above
applications and there is no bonafide reasons in the applications and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
therefore, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the suit as he has not
mentioned the reason for delay.
8. This Court has heard the submissions made by both sides and
also perused the records carefully.
9. The petitioner wanted to file some documents and therefore, he
has filed the above applications. In a suit for declaration of title, the
documents play a crucial role to establishing the title of the respective
parties. The Court must determine whether the documents sought to be
filed are relevant and admissible. Furthermore, mere production of
documents does not prove title. It is the duty of the Court to allow the
petitioner to produce the documents and thereafter, can determine
whether the the petitioner has successfully proven his claim. It is true
that the petitioner filed the above applications without proper reason for
filing such application at an early stage. However, though there is a
delay, if he has not allowed to produce the above documents, he cannot
prove his title. Therefore, in order to provide fair opportunity, this Court
decided to allow these Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders
of the lower Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
10. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the
orders dated 18.04.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019 in O.S.No.76
of 2018 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.
2,500/- to the respondents for the delay and he should also produce the
documents within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and to adduce the evidence. The respondents are also to be provided
with fair opportunity to cross examine the witness. If the cost is not paid
within 10 days after receipt of a copy of this order and if he failed to
produce and adduce the evidence, the above applications will be
automatically dismissed. The trial Court is also directed to complete the
trial within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
06.03.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
R.POORNIMA, J.
vsm
To
1.The Sub Judge, Eraniel.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.475 to 477 of 2021
06.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 06:22:03 pm )
