Defendant's application in first appeal to send documents from the Thasildar's office for marking as additional evidence was dismissed. The High Court held the application was wrongly filed under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC instead of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dismissed the civil revision, granting liberty to file a proper application.
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.
CRP(MD).No.1045 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P(MD)No.1045 of 2022 and CMP(MD).No.4199 of 2022
Saroja
: Petitioner / appellant
Vs.
Subbiah
: Respondent / respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 16.12.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For respondent : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 16.12.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
CRP(MD).No.1045 of 2022
the file of District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, in which, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Against which the revision petitioner / defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of Sub Court, Sivagangai. Pending appeal suit, the revision petitioner / defendant preferred an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC for the purpose of sending the documents from the office of the Thasildar, Sivagangai for marking as additional evidence on the side of the revision petitioner / defendant. The said application was resisted on the side of the respondent / plaintiff. However, the First Appellate court dismissed the said application. Against which the present revision is preferred.
CRP(MD).No.1045 of 2022
view of the above, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits.
26.11.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No trp To
The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
CRP(MD).No.1045 of 2022
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
trp
C.R.P(MD)No.1045 of 2022 and CMP(MD).No.4199 of 2022
26.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's dismissal of an application to summon documents as additional evidence in appeal, filed under the wrong provision of CPC, could be interfered with under Article 227.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Saroja
Subbiah
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
