Plaintiff challenged the trial court's order permitting the second defendant to mark additional documents in an injunction suit. The High Court held the revision petition not maintainable, as objections to marked documents must be raised by legal objection or cross-examination, and dismissed it.
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.
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.12.2024
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.16959 of 2024
K.S.Govindharaj ...Revision Petitioner
Vs.
S.Nithya ... Respondent
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu
For Respondent : Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakan
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the o rder dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in O.S.No.198 of 2017.
1
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the
learned District Munsif, Dharapuram (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Trial Court) in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in O.S.No.198 of 2017 dated 09.02.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
i) The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.198 of
2017 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. During trial, the second defendant, viz., the respondent herein has filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to mark certain documents. The
said Application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the documents, which the respondent herein sought to mark as additional documents were in no way related to the suit property, and the same were related to some other property, and therefore, the same need
2
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
not be marked, however, the Trial Court, without considering the said aspect, erroneously, allowed the Application. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the Revision.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/second defendant would submit that the revision petitioner, being a tenant under the first defendant has encroached the property in question, by claiming unlawful possession, and in order to prove the same, certain documents were required to be marked as additional evidence, for which purpose, the second defendant has taken out the Interlocutory Application; that the Trial Court, having considered the importance of such documents, allowed the Application and permitted the second defendant to mark such documents, and the same requires no interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the
respondent and perused the records.
3
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
6. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the very Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable for the reason that when the Trial Court has exercised its discretion and allowed the parties to adduce evidence, the same cannot be interfered with in this Revision. If at all, the revision petitioner is aggrieved over marking of such documents, the same ought to have been rebutted by him during cross-examination or challenged by way of proper legal objection, without doing so, it is not open to the revision petitioner to challenge the same in the Civil Revision Petition.
7. That apart, it is now stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the documents have already been marked and the parties have also been cross-examined and at that stage of the matter, the revision petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine the witness. In such view of the mater, it is for the revision petitioner to challenge those documents during trial, however, not by way of Civil Revision Petition.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Trial
Court is directed to proceed with the disposal of the suit as expeditiously as
4
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
possible, preferably, within a period of 3 months from the date of a receipt of
a certified copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.12.2024
sd
To
The District Munsif, Dharapuram.
5
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024
N.Sathish Kumar,J.
sd
C.R.P.No.3148 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.16959 of 2024
09.12.2024
6
1 issue framed by the court
Is a Civil Revision Petition maintainable against a Trial Court order allowing marking of additional documents during trial?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S.Govindharaj
S.Nithya
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
