Dismissed

Rajendran v. Navas

Madras HC21 Dec 2024CRP/5020/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to set aside a trial court order allowing document production. The Court held that the trial court acted on the petitioner's prior non-objection and directed the petitioner to approach the trial judge directly to correct any alleged recording error.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the trial judge regarding alleged error; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Rajendran Vs Navas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.5020 of 2024 & CMP.No.28180 of 2024

¶7

Rajendran .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Navas .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sub Court, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.701 of 2024 in O.S.No.772 of 2020 dated 24.09.2024.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Gunasekar

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶16

When the civil revision petition came up for admission, I pointed out

¶17

Mr.V.Gunasekar that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has recorded as follows:

¶18

“ The petitioner has filed this petition to seek leave of this court to produce the documents. The respondent has not made any objection to this petition. Hence, this petition is allowed. The Doc filed along with the petition will be marked subject to proof and relevancy.

¶19

Signed

¶20

24.09.2024”

¶21

Mr.V.Gunasekar took time to get instructions from his counter part in

¶22

Kallakurichi. Today, he points out that his counter part on 19.09.2024 had made an endorsement as follows:

¶23

“I take notice, pray time for counter, being the documents No.1 and 2 are not original and are not certified copies. Hence they cannot to be marked as exhibits. The documents No.3 to 5 may be record subject to relevancy.

¶24

19.09.2024

¶25

Counsel for the plaintiff”

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶29

Hence, Mr.V.Gunasekar argues that the recording made by the learned Judge is erroneous.

¶30

The recording made by a court cannot be drawn into in the game of litigation. I have to go as per the recordings made by the learned Presiding Officer, namely, the Additional Subordinate Court at Kallakurichi. The endorsement reads the civil revision petitioner did not object to the application being allowed. If that be the situation, having tendered no objection to the trial court, the relief sought for in the revision cannot be entertained.

¶31

Taking into consideration the plea that has been raised by Mr.V.Gunasekar, I am of the view that the appropriate remedy, in case the learned Judge has recorded a wrong happening in the Court, is to file an application before the very same learned Judge pointing out the error that had been committed by him. It would be in line with the view that has been pronounced by the Privy Council in R.M.K.R.M. Somasundaram Chetty v. M.R.M.V.L. Subramanian Chetty, 1926 SCC OnLine PC 36 as well as the

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶35

Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 .

¶36

It is open to the petitioner to file such application as is open to him questioning the recording in the Court before the very same learned Judge. As long as the recordings stand, I am not inclined to interfere. This civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

21.12.2024

¶38

¶39

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶43

¶44

The Additional Sub Court, Kallakurichi

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

C.R.P. (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶48

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,

¶49

¶50

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.5020 of 2024

¶51

21.12.2024

¶52

Page 6 of 6

¶53

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

Rajendran v. Navas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. Navas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Barathi Vs R. Kumar

Kiruthika Vs S.M.Ashwinrajaa

Bhuvaneswari Vs M.Parthiban

R.Srinivasan Vs R.Sakunthala

M. Subramani Vs Dhanalakshmi

V.Deekshitha Vs R.Aravinth