Mr.R.Balasubramanian Vs Mrs.K.Jayanthi and 6 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr.R.Balasubramanian Vs Mrs.K.Jayanthi and 6 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application partly allowed: the applicant is permitted to mark the second document alone, namely the Statement of Accounts, subject to proof and relevancy; the requests relating to the first document (Power of Attorney) and the third document (already marked as Ex.P33) were declined; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be permitted to receive the three documents listed in the Judge's Summons and mark them as Exhibits 1 to 3 on his side in the suit.

Court's answer

The first document (the Power of Attorney) need not be taken up/received, since the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff does not dispute the relationship of the applicant as the Power Agent of his son.

Ratio / Principle

The third document need not be received on the defendant's side, as it had already been listed as Plaint Document No.33 and marked as Ex.P33.

Key takeaways

The application is partly allowed: the applicant is permitted to mark only the second document, the Statement of Accounts, there being no objection from the respondent/plaintiff, subject to proof and relevancy.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory application (A.No.4123 of 2025) in C.S.No.525 of 2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.) seeking leave to receive three documents listed in a Judge's Summons and mark them as Exhibits 1 to 3 on the defendant's side, the documents having been untraceable when the written statement was filed. Held, partly allowing the application: (i) the first document, a Power of Attorney claimed to have been executed by the son of the second defendant in favour of the applicant, need not be taken up, since the respondent/plaintiff does not dispute the applicant's relationship as Power Agent of his son; (ii) the third document need not be received, being already marked as Ex.P33; and (iii) the applicant is permitted to mark only the second document, the Statement of Accounts, to which the respondent/plaintiff raised no objection, subject to proof and relevancy. No order as to costs.

A NO. 4123 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

A.No.4123 of 2025

in C.S.No.525 of 2019

Mr.R.Balasubramanian S/o.Ramachand Iyer, No.18/20, Rajaji Street, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai-606 701

Applicant(s)

Vs

Mrs.K.Jayanthi and 6 others Rep.by G.P.A. M.Palani, No.520, Anna Nagar III Avenue, N.S.K.Nagar, Arumbakkam, Ch-106 and 6 Others

Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s):

Mr.K.Krishnan

For Respondent(s):

Mr.Adinarayana Rao (For R1 & R2)

ORDER

The present application has been filed to receive the documents

mentioned in the Judge's Summons and permit applicant to mark them as Exhibits 1 to 3.

Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would

submit that the documents sought to be filed in the Judge's Summons were the documents, were not been traced by him at the time of filing the written

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

statement and that the said documents have now been traced. The said documents may be permitted to be taken on file and to be marked as Exhibits 1 to 3 on his side.

Mr.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that as regards to the second document namely, Statement of Accounts, he would have no objection, however, subject to proof and relevancy. As regards to the first document, namely, the Power of Attorney, which is claimed to have been executed by the son of the second defendant in his favour, he would submit that the respondent/plaintiff has not disputed the relationship between the second defendant and his son. He admits that the second defendant had been authorized by his son. Therefore, in such view of the admission, Document No.1 is not a necessary document. Similarly, with regard to the third document, he would submit that the said document is also listed as Plaint Document No.33 and has been marked as Ex.P33. Therefore, the said document also need not be permitted to be marked on the side of the defendant.

I have heard both sides and considered the submissions made by the

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

learned counsel appearing on either side.

Since with regard to the first document in the Judge's Summons, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff does not dispute the relationship of the applicant as the Power Agent of his son, the said document, which seeks to establish the right of the applicant, need not be taken up. Similarly, since the third document had already been marked as Ex.P33, the request to receive the said document also need not be entertained.

As regards to the second document, the respondent/plaintiff himself has no objection to allow the said document, however, subject to proof and relevancy, the application is partly-allowed, by permitting the applicant to mark the Statement of Accounts listed as the second document in the Judge's Summons alone.

In fine, the application in A.No.4123 of 2025 in C.S.No.525 of 2019 stands partly-allowed by permitting the applicant to mark the second document, namely, the Statement of Accounts alone, however, subject to proof and relevancy.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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

21-08-2025

kak

To

Mrs.K.Jayanthi and 6 others Rep.by G.P.A. M.Palani, No.520, Anna Nagar III Avenue, N.S.K.Nagar, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

2. Mr.Palani

Propr. of M/s.Chandra Flat Promoters, No.110, 5th Street, N.S.K.Nagar, Arumbakkam, Ch-106

3. Mr.B.Sridharan

S/o.R.Balasubramanian, No.18/20, Rajaji Street, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai606 701

4. Mr.Vinayaka Acharya

S/o.Krishnamurthy, No.16-B, VGN Lakshmi Nagar, Mugalivakkam, Ch-110

5. M/s.ICICI Banking Pvt Ltd

Rep.by its Manager, A-78, Plot No.3211, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai

6. M/s.HDFC Bank

Rep.by its Manager, No.759, ITC Center, Anna Salai, Ch-2

7. Diwan Housing Finance Ltd.

Rep.by its Director, No.36/24, Kalpathika Tower, Dr.Ambedkar Rd. Kodambakkam, Ch-24

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

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

kak

A.No.4123 of 2025 in C.S.No.525 of 2019

21.08.2025

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