Allowed

M.Sekar(Died) v. Sri Sakthi Mills

Madras HC12 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/502/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition alleging procedural violation by the subordinate appellate court for hearing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC separately. The matter was remitted to restore the application and hear it along with the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition allowed; matter remitted to appellate court to restore I.A.53 of 2021 and take up matter along with main appeal.

M.Sekar(Died) Vs Sri Sakthi Mills — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD).No.2171 of 2022

¶7

1.M.Sekar (Died)

¶8

2.Meenambal

¶9

3.Nagarani 4.Tamilselvi

¶10

5.Muthupandi

¶11

... Revision Petitioners

¶12

(Petitioners 2 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased sole Petitioner vide Court order, dated 14.11.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos. 15547, 15549 and 15551 of 2024)

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Sri Sakthi Mills, Managing Director, Sri S.Sakthi, S/o Sundarrajan, Jeeva Nagar 1^st Street, Madurai. ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶15

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶16

Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in A.S.No.2 of 2021, dated 27.01.2022, on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, by allowing the said application for marking the document of the Tahsildar while deciding the appeal.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Ramamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in A.S.No.2 of 2021, dated 27.01.2022, on the file of

¶23

the Sub Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, by allowing the said application for marking the document of the Tahsildar while deciding the appeal.

¶24

2.The facts in brief:

¶25

Suit in O.S.No.28 of 2018 was filed by the deceased revision petitioner herein against the respondent seeking the relief of declaration and for consequential injunction. Suit came to be dismissed. Against which, A.S.No.2 of 2021 is taken up. Pending the proceedings I.A.No.53 of 2021 was filed by the revision petitioner herein under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to permit the additional evidence. That came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. Against which this revision petition is preferred.

¶26

3.Heard both sides.

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶30

4.Only short point arises for consideration. The order impugned in

¶31

this revision was passed without taking A.S.No.2 of 2021. It is settled procedure of law that when ever Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is filed, it must be taken along with the appeal. Then only whether the proposed evidence is required for rendering a just decision can be taken. But, hereby violating the above said procedure it appears that the appellate Court has taken up I.A.No.53 of 2021 separately. Even in the order, there is no indication for deviating the procedure.

¶32

5.Even though the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the document which is proposed to be filed is inadmissible in evidence, this is too a premature stage to make any observation of evidentiary value of particular document and evidence to be given by the concerned authority.

¶33

5.So due to the procedure violation, I am of the considered view that the matter must be remitted back to the appellate Court with direction to restore the I.A.53 of 2021 to its file and take up the matter

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶37

along with the main appeal.

¶38

6.Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court.

¶39

The appellate Court shall restore the I.A.53 of 2021 to its file and take up the matter along with the main appeal.

¶40

7.With the above said directions, this civil revision petition stands

¶41

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

12.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶43

¶44

1.The Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi.

¶45

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section,

¶46

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

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

¶48

4/5

¶49

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶50

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶51

¶52

C.R.P.(MD)No.502 of 2022

¶53

12.12.2024

¶54

5/5

¶55

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

M.Sekar(Died) v. Sri Sakthi Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sekar(Died) v. Sri Sakthi Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Pappammal Vs P. Manokaran

Banumathi Vs The Managing Trustee

M. Bose, Vs M. Rajkumar

M.Karnan Vs Rajamani

K.Ponnusamy, Vs Arulmigu Sri Meiporulnathaswamy

K.P.K.Rajan, Vs the General Manager