Disposed¶30

S.Anbazhagan v. E.Natarajan

Madras HC18 Sept 2025CRP/4473/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC; CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025; CMP.No.22806 of 2025; S.Anbazhagan v. E.Natarajan; O.S.No.120 of 2019 partition suit; I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2024; Section 151 CPC; Order 11 Rule 16 r/w Section 151; reopening; notice to produce documents; original documents in defendant's custody; certified copies sale deed Doc.No.5140/2013; Art.227 judicial review; CRP disposed; M. Jothiraman J.; 18.09.2025; III Additional District and Sessions Court Tiruvallur Poonamallee.

What did the court decide?

No relief setting aside the impugned order; with the above observation the civil revision petitions stand disposed of with no costs, the defendant being left free to produce the original documents for perusal before the Court below, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No.22806 of 2025) is closed. ¶30

S.Anbazhagan Vs E.Natarajan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court below acted correctly in allowing I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2024 (under Section 151 of CPC and Order 11 Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC) for reopening the case and causing notice to the defendant to produce documents, moved after evidence was completed and the suit stood posted for arguments; the revision petitioner contended the documents were already marked on the plaintiff's side and the petitions were filed only to delay proceedings. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Court found from the records that the Court below had rightly allowed the applications, the production of the original documents being necessary to decide the real issue between the parties.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

To provide the plaintiff an opportunity to establish his case effectively, the revision petitioner/defendant can produce the documents for perusal before the Court below.

¶29

Key takeaways

Passing observation that the plaintiff could equally have given notice directly to the defendant for producing the documents instead of approaching the Court below for such a direction; this observation did not form the basis of the disposition.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petitions (Art. 227, Constitution of India) by the defendant in O.S.No.120 of 2019, a partition suit pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee, challenging the common order dated 07.02.2025 in I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2024 whereby the plaintiff's applications under Section 151 of CPC and Order 11 Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC - filed after evidence was completed and the suit was posted for arguments on 11.03.2024 - for reopening the case and causing notice to the defendant to produce documents, were allowed. Certified copies of the sale deed (Doc. No.5140 of 2013), patta, chitta, adangal, EC and electricity consumption card were already on record, the originals being stated to be in the defendant's custody. Holding that the Court below had rightly allowed the applications since the original documents were needed to decide the real issue between the parties, and observing that the plaintiff could have given notice directly to the defendant, the Court disposed of the CRPs, leaving the defendant free to produce the originals for perusal before the trial court; no costs; connected CMP.No.22806 of 2025 closed. (M. Jothiraman, J.; High Court of Judicature at Madras; 18.09.2025.)

¶1

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025 and CMP.No.22806 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025

and

CMP.No.22806 of 2025

S.Anbazhagan

... Petitioner / Respondent / Defendant in both CRPs Versus

¶11

E.Natarajan ... Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff in both CRPs

¶12

Common Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the CRP and set aside fair and dcreetal order dated 07.02.2025 made in I.A.Nos.11 & 10 of 2024 in O.S.No.120 of 2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

Unsuccessful defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision

¶15

Petitions.

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025 and CMP.No.22806 of 2025

¶19

The suit in O.S.No.120 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in the suit property. After completion of the recording of evidence, the case was posted for arguments on 11.03.2024. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2024 in O.S.No.120 of 2019 under Section 151 of CPC and Order 11 Rule 16 r/w Section 151 of CPC for reopening the case and causing notice to the defendant for producing the documents as described in the petitions therein. Upon hearing either side, the Court below vide order dated 07.02.2025, allowed these petitions. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the documents sought by the plaintiff have already been marked as documents on the plaintiff side, and hence, there is no necessity for production of documents. The learned counsel further submits that the petitions have been filed without any valid reason and only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025 and CMP.No.22806 of 2025

¶24

It is seen from the records, the plaintiff is the co-owner of the suit property and he has filed certified copies of the sale deed bearing document No.5140 of 2013, online patta, chitta, adangal extract, encumbrance certificate and electricity consumption card. It is also been stated that the originals of the documents are in the custody of the defendant. The original documents are essential to establish the case of the petitioner that he has half share in the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original of the documents as described in the petitions are much essential to prove his case and therefore, the documents are essential.

¶25

The said suit was posted for arguments on 11.03.2024. At this stage, these petitions came to be filed. The plaintiff can very well give notice directly to the defendant for producing the documents as described in the petitions. However, the plaintiff has approached the Court below seeking a direction to issue notice for the defendant to produce the documents. In order to provide an opportunity to establish the case of the plaintiff, an opportunity may be provided to the plaintiff to put forth his case effectively. It is seen from the records, the Court below has rightly allowed these applications for

¶26

3/5

¶27

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

¶28

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025 and CMP.No.22806 of 2025

¶29

production of original documents in order to decide the real issue between the parties. Hence, the revision petitioner / defendant can very well produce those documents for perusal before the Court below.

¶30

With the above observation, these civil revision petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

18.09.2025

¶32

av Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No

¶33

To The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, Poonamallee.

¶34

4/5

¶35

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

¶36

CRP.Nos.4473 & 4474 of 2025 and CMP.No.22806 of 2025