Allowed

Nagamalai (Died) v. Selvaraj, S/O. Perumal

Madras HC18 Dec 2018CRP/4703/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed Civil Revisions challenging the rejection of applications to recall a witness for producing revenue documents obtained through Right to Information. The trial court's refusal was set aside, and the trial was remanded for a specific timeline to complete evidence.

What did the court decide?

Orders in I.A. No. 534, 535 & 536 of 2017 set aside; permission granted to recall P.W.2 to complete evidence within one month.

Nagamalai (Died) Vs Selvaraj, S/O. Perumal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.12.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P(PD) No.4703,4704 & 4705 of 2017
and
CMP. No.22136 of 2017
Nagamalai (died)
1.K.P.Balakrishnan
2.N.Saraswati
3.N.Viswanathan
4.N.Devarajan
5.K.Kavitha ..Petitioners in
all C.R.Ps
Vs
1.Selvaraj
Mahudeswaran (died) ..Respondent in
all C.R.Ps

¶7

COMMON PRAYER:- Civil Revisions Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal dated 16.11.2017 made in I.A.No.536 of 2017, I.A.No.534 of 2017 & I.A.No.535 of 2017 in O.S.No.33 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioners in all C.R.Ps :Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent in all C.R.Ps :MR.S.Viswanathan

¶11

for M/S Dass & Viswa Associates

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The plaintiffs are the applicants who had filed the application to

¶14

recall P.W.2 and produce additional documents. The trial Court had rejected the said applications on the ground that these documents are intended to fill up the lacuna in the evidence and that too, at a belated

¶15

stage. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revisions have been filed.

¶16

The petitioners herein in their applications filed before the

¶17

trial Court, had stated that these revenue documents were obtained from

¶18

the Revenue Authority under Right To Information Act.

¶19

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, these

¶20

documents are public documents and were not in possession of the petitioners herein. In view of the stand taken by the respondent herein in

¶21

his written statement denying the petitioners' right over the subject property, he was constrained to move the Revenue Authority and as soon as

¶22

he had obtained all these public documents, he intended to produce the

¶23

same before the Court. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioners herein, had not exercised due diligence and produced all these documents

¶24

which were in his possession at the time of filing of the suit. In view of the

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

subsequent defence taken in the written statement, he had approached the

¶28

Revenue Authority for getting these documents.

¶29

Further more, these documents would only help the trial Court

¶30

to come to a just and fair conclusion. Though, I do not find any infirmity in the observations of the Court that the proceedings are being delayed, in view of the filing of these applications, after the trial had commenced. Such a situation could be cured by directing the trial Court to complete the trial within a stipulated time instead of rejecting the request made by the petitioners herein.

¶31

In the light of the above observations, the orders passed in I.A.No.536 of 2017, I.A.No.534 of 2017 & I.A.No.535 of 2017 are set aside.

¶32

Consequently, the petitioners are permitted to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of letting in oral and documentary evidence. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

¶33

of this order. While marking these documents, it will be open to the respondent herein to raise his objection, if any. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

18.12.2018

¶35

Index : Yes/No dh

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S. RAMESH.J.,

To
The Principal District Munsif,
Tiruchengode.
C.R.P(PD) No.4703,4704 & 4705 of 2017
and
CMP. No.22136 of 2017

¶41

18.12.2018

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

Nagamalai (Died) v. Selvaraj, S/O. Perumal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagamalai (Died) v. Selvaraj, S/O. Perumal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Gtv Spinners Private Ltd. Vs M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd.

M/S.City Book Centre Vs Kamalam

K.v.Lakshmipathy (Died) Vs J.Senthamizh Selvi

P.Yuvasri Vs M.Tamilarasan

Kumudhasri Vs Baskaran

P. Amutha Vs R. Tamilarasa