In this civil revision petition under Article 227, the High Court of Madras considered whether the learned District Judge committed an error in allowing additional documents following a denial of payments in a suit for specific performance. The Court held there was no infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.R.P(PD).No.646 of 2019
&
C.M.P.No.4314 of 2019
A.Dayalan ...Petitioner
Vs
J.Deepak Gothi ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.286 of 2018 in O.S.No.43 of 2013 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi
2
ORDER
The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur in allowing the I.A.No.286 of 2018 in O.S.No.43 of 2013 in and by which the learned Judge has allowed the petitioner/plaintiff to file an additional documents on the plaintiff's side. The suit is one for specific performance and after the evidence and cross examination of the D.W.1 and D.W.2 the impugned petition has been taken out.
2.The reason for taking out the said petition has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the impugned order that in their oral evidence the defendants have denied all the payments that were made by the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the fact that the impugned petition has been moved immediately on the denial by the defendants, the learned
3
Judge has allowed the petition and granted the leave to the respondent to also cross examine the plaintiff side witnesses.
I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned IV
Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur. In the result, the Civil
Revision Petition stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
also closed.
21.02.2019
kan
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
To,
The IV Additional District Judge,
Tiruvallur.
4
P.T.ASHA, J.,
kan
C.R.P(PD).No.646 of 2019 &
C.M.P.No.4314 of 2019
21.02.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the single judge's order allowing the filing of additional documents is infirm?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Dayalan
J. Deepak Gothi
P.T. AsHa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
