Allowed

K.Uthirakumar, v. Sivasankaramoorthy

Madras HC4 Feb 2015CRP(MD)/1674/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Civil Revision Petitions quashing a District Munsif's order reopening a partition suit to recall a witness for producing marriage photographs and CDs, citing lack of bona fide intent and absence of ambiguity at the judgment stage.

What did the court decide?

The order of the District Munsif allowing reopening and recall of PW1 in I.A.Nos.166 and 167 of 2013 is set aside. Civil Revision Petitions allowed. Connected M.P. closed. No costs.

K.Uthirakumar, Vs Sivasankaramoorthy — Partition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

CRP(MD).Nos.1674 and 1675 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in CRP(MD).No.1674 of 2013

¶7

K. Uthirakumar

¶8

Deivanai Ammal

¶9

Kumaresan

¶10

(unsound mind of 3rd petitioner through his

¶11

mother of second petitioner)

¶12

Pandarampaul

¶13

: Petitioners in both CRPs/ Respondents 7,8,9 & 10/ Defendants 7,8,9 & 10.

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Sivasanakarmoorthy : 1st respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff 2. C. Rajakumari

¶16

B. Santhakumari

¶17

T. Jeyakumari

¶18

Sarojadevi

¶19

Kanika Dhevi

¶20

M. Rajeswari : Respondents 2 to 7/Respondents 1 to 6 /Respondents 1 to 6in both CRPs.

¶21

Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.Nos.166 and 167 of 2013 respectively in O.S.No.7 of 2012 dated 19.04.2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Sivathilakar For 1st Respondent : Mr. F.X. Eugene For Respondents 3 to7 : Mr. T. Selvam

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

These revisions are directed against the order allowing the applications under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C to reopen and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recall of the PW1 for producing additional documents.

¶25

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶27

The suit is filed for partition and after trial and arguments are over, it was posted for judgement, at this stage, the first respondent / plaintiff has come up with said Interlocutory Applications to produce some additional documents viz., photographs and CDs of the marriage of the daughter. He filed an applications to reopen and recall PW.1 to mark those documents. The said applications were resisted by the revision petitioners / defendants contending that even on earlier occasion two Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.819 and 820 of 2012 were filed to recall PW.1 and mark some documents, which were allowed.

¶28

Now, this is the second set of applications filed after the arguments were heard and there is no merit in the case and it has to be dismissed . But, after hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners / defendants have come up with the above said revisions.

¶29

No doubt, order 18 Rule 17 of CPC is to enable the Court to give proper adjudication, in the event of the court feeling that the case may be reopened for elucidating any ambiguity. It is also open to the parties to take out an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC. However, such exercise has to be done sparingly. The said applications cannot be allowed for the sake of convenience, as has been done in this case.

¶30

It is the suit for partition and the parties are close relatives and the evidence is over and posted for judgment. At this stage, the first respondent / plaintiff has come up with these applications. The learned District Munsif, Tiruchendur has held that the applications cannot be dismissed mainly on the ground that they are filed for the second time. It is not stated by the trial Court that there is an ambiguity in the mind of the Court to adjudicate the main issue or the reopening of the case is absolutely necessary.

¶31

When the arguments are heard and posted for judgement, at the fag end of the proceedings, the applications are filed by the plaintiff. Such applications cannot be allowed to reopen and recall to mark only documents, which are apparently secondary evidence. From the conduct of the first respondent / plaintiff, it is evident that there is no bonafide in filing such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applications.

¶32

¶33

In view of the above findings, the order of the District Munsif, Thiruchendur passed in I.A.Nos.166 and 167 of 2013 are set aside as reopening and recall of the PW.1 is unwarranted, after the judgment was reserved.

¶34

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

The District Munsif, Thiruchendur.

¶40

+2cc to Mr.S.Sivathilakar, Advocate Sr.No.5076 & 5077

¶41

trp

¶42

AA/25.02.2015/3p- 4c/

¶43

CRP(MD).Nos.1674 and 1675/2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 in CRP(MD).No.1674 of 2013

¶44

04.02.2015

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Uthirakumar, v. Sivasankaramoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Uthirakumar, v. Sivasankaramoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rajendran, Vs the Tamilnadu State

K. Nagarajan, Vs Thiru. S. Anbalagan

P. Parvathy(Died), Vs Devadhass

Natchimuthu Gounder, Vs v. Karuppusamy

Vairavan @ Jeyabalan, Vs Vasudevan, Aged 55 Yrs

M. Shanmugasundaram Vs Pappa @ Pappammal