Allowed

Chinthamani v. Kalyani

Madras HC6 Nov 2023CRP/683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed three Civil Revision Petitions challenging the dismissal of Applications for permission to produce additional documents and recall evidence. The High Court set aside the trial court order, allowing petitioners to submit a 1983 sale deed and cooperate for trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing requests to receive additional documents and recall P.W.1 evidence was set aside; petitioners directed to produce sale deed within two weeks and cooperate in trial.

Chinthamani Vs Kalyani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.Nos.683, 672 & 679 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.Nos. 683, 672 & 679 of 2023 and C.M.P. No. 5394 of 2023

¶7

1.Chinthamani 2.Vijalakshmi

¶8

.. Petitioners in all the CRPs

1.Kalyani

Kamala (deceased)

2.Rajakumari 3.Susila

¶13

.. Respondents in all the CRPs

¶14

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order in I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2022 in O.S.No.51 of 2013 dated 08.12.2022 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ulunthurpet.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. M. Muruganantham For Respondents : Mr. P. Sundararajan

¶16

1/5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.R.P.Nos.683, 672 & 679 of 2023

¶19

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶20

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2022 in O.S.No.51 of 2013, dated 08.12.2022 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Ulunthurpet to receive the petitioners / plaintiffs side additional documents; (ii) to re-open the petitioners / plaintiffs side evidence which is closed on 02.04.2019 and (iii) to re-call P.W.1 evidence.

¶21

All the applications were dismissed by the trial Judge holding that to fill up the lacuna, the plaintiffs are not entitled to produce the documents. The suit is pending from the year 2013 and at the time of the trial stage, they want to produce sale deed, as such is not permissible and no proper reason was assigned for non production of the document much earlier.

¶22

Challenging the said finding, the petitioners have preferred

¶23

this revision.

¶24

2/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

C.R.P.Nos.683, 672 & 679 of 2023

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶28

that though the suit was filed in the year 2013, now only the trial was commenced, at that time they want to produce the sale deed dated 16.06.1983 in order to establish that they are having claim over the property. But the same was denied by the trial Judge. Hence, prayed to set aside the findings in I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2022.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

¶30

that the suit was filed in the year 2013 but after 7 years they approached the Court by filing a new document, as such is not permissible under law.

¶31

Admittedly, the first petitioner is more than 52 years old lady,

¶32

wants to produce the document of the year 1983, nearly about 40 years old document. If the document is not permitted to be produced, their valid right to defend the case will be defeated. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Judge in I.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2022 in O.S.No.51 of 2013 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to produce document before the trial Court within

¶33

3/5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.Nos.683, 672 & 679 of 2023

¶36

two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and both the parties are directed to cooperate for the trial proceeding.

¶37

In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No

¶38

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

06.11.2023

¶40

Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No AT To The Additional District Munsif, Ulunthurpet.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

C.R.P.Nos.683, 672 & 679 of 2023

¶44

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶45

¶46

C.R.P.Nos. 683, 672 & 679 of 2023 and C.M.P. No. 5394 of 2023

¶47

06.11.2023

¶48

5/5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chinthamani v. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinthamani v. Kalyani

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

V. Shanmugasundaram Vs S. Siddiq

Kabali Vs Kuppu

Sos Childrens Villages of India Vs Firos Cheriparambath Myladen

Gomathi Vs S.Gokul

P.Vishnuraghav Vs N.Manjula Devi

S.Rajasekar Vs M.Kuppusamy