Madras High Court
D.A.Ashokkumar vs S.Gunasekaran on 22 October, 2025
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.Nos.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and
CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
1. D.A.Ashokkumar
2. D.A.Premkumar
3. D.A.Rajkumar
4. D.A.Sivakumar
5. D.A.Senthil Kumar
... Petitioners/defendants in all CRPs
Versus
S.Gunasekaran ... Respondent/plaintiff in all CRPs
COMMON PRAYER: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated
12.08.2025 made in I.A.Nos.7, 6 & 5 of 2025 respectively, in OS.No.62 of
2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, by allowing the
above Civil Revision Petitions.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
For Petitioners in
all CRPs : Mr.G.Prabhakaran
For Respondent
in all CRPs : Mr.N.Suresh
COMMON ORDER
Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision
Petitions.
2. One S.Gunasekaran, has filed a suit in OS.No.62 of 2021 on the file
of I Additional District Court, Tindivanam, seeking the relief of partition.
The defendants have filed written statement and necessary issues were
framed. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and another
two witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3 and certain documents were
marked. The Plaintiff's side evidence was closed. Thereafter, the case was
posted for defendants' side evidence. On behalf of the defendants' side, DW1
was examined and cross examined and the case was posted for arguments. At
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
this stage, plaintiff has filed an application in IA.No.5 of 2025 under Section
151 of CPC to re-open the plaintiff's side evidence. IA.No.6 of 2025 has been
filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall PW1 for further examination.
IA.No.7 of 2025 has been filed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for reception of
additional documents. Upon hearing on either side, the Court below vide
common order dated 12.08.2025, allowed the said petitions on the ground
that it is necessary to clarify and enable the Court below to adjudicate the lis
in a complete manner on condition to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved
over the same, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred the present
Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the Court below erred in allowing the application to receive additional
documents after the conclusion of trial, which is not permissible under the
law. The petition to receive additional documents was allowed without
proper analysis of the reasons stated by the respondent/plaintiff. The Court
below ought to have seen that the documents sought to be introduced are only
certified copies readily available at the office of the Competent registering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
authority and could have been filed at the time of instituting the suit. The said
documents were not originally relied upon by the plaintiff in the suit. The
Court below erred in accepting the respondent's contradictory pleading that
the documents “could not be traced during the filing of the suit as they were
misplaced,” even though the documents are certified copies easily obtainable
from the registration office. The case is posted for arguments stage and at this
stage, in order to fill up the lacuna in the evidence alone, these applications
came to be filed and the same is unsustainable in law.
4. To strengthen counsel's contention, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1028 in Shubhkaran Singh Vs.
Abhayraj Singh and others.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff
would submit that in order to decide the real dispute between the parties, it is
just necessary to receive those documents. In a suit for partition, it is for the
plaintiff to establish his case. The learned counsel for the respondent further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
would submit that the documents which are sought to be received pertain to
the other sold joint family properties. For non-filing of the documents during
the filing of the suit or during the plaintiff's evidence it is neither willfull nor
wanton.
6. It is seen from the records, there are four documents sought to be
received; the first document is pertaining to a sale deed dated 29.12.1979
executed by Arumugam, Ellusamy and Poongavanam Ammal in favour of
one Vijayalakshmi, the second document is a sale deed dated 06.08.1994
executed by Arumugam, Ellusamy and Poongavanam Ammal in favour of
one Ramraj, the third document is sale deed dated 10.07.1997 executed by
Arumugam, Ellusamy and Poongavanam Ammal in favour of one Malar and
the fourth document is mortgage deed dated 25.05.1992 executed by
Arumugam, Ellusamy and Poongavanam Ammal to one Selvam.
7. The suit is of the year 2021 and after framing necessary issues on
behalf of the plaintiff's side, three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the
revision petitioners/defendants' side, one witness was examined and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
defendants' side evidence was closed. Thereafter, the case was posted for
arguments stage. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed three applications to re-
open, re-call and condone the delay in receiving the additional documents. It
is also seen from the records that the case of the plaintiff is that the suit
property originally belongs one Dikku. It is joint family ancestral property
and that it devolved on his sons Arumugam, Chellamuthu and Ellusamy.
After the demise of Chellamuthu, it devolved on his wife Poongavanam, son
Gunasekaran and daughter Tamilarasi. The plaintiff is the son of
Chellamuthu. Therefore, in order to prove the joint family status and
possession of the suit property, the petition mentioned documents are sought
to be adduced as additional documents. According to the revision petitioners,
when the case is posted for arguments stage, the documents sought to be filed
are unnecessary documents and there is no connection with the suit Survey
number and Survey number mentioned in the documents.
8. Upon hearing either side, the Court below finds that permitting the
plaintiff to adduce additional evidence and to produce the petition mentioned
documents will enable the Court below to arrive at a complete and just
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
decision. In order to decide the controversy between the parties in a suit for
partition, an opportunity may be provided to the parties to conclude the lis
between the parties.
9. Upon considering the stage of the suit, the Court below has allowed
the applications on condition to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- by the plaintiff to the
defendants. This Court is of the view that on completion of either side
evidence and when the case is posted for arguments, such applications were
filed to re-open, re-call and to condone the delay in receiving the documents
and therefore, the defendants have to be necessarily compensated by the cost
of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff shall pay the cost of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the revision
petitioners/defendants within a period of one week from today. On such
payment of cost, the Court below requested to dispose of the main suit as
expeditiously as possible.
10. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petition are dismissed. It is made
clear that the respondent/plaintiff shall co-operate with the Court below to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 & 23551 of 2025
dispose of the case and shall not seek for unnecessary adjournments.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
22.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
dna
To
The I Additional District Court, Tindivanam.
CRP.No.4628, 4643 & 4651 of 2025
and
CMP.Nos. 23569, 23491 &
23551 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm )
