Shanmugasundaram, v. Rooba

Madras HC2 Dec 2025CRP/6160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismisses revision petitions against costs imposed for allowing defendants' applications to recall witness and produce documents; defendants sought to file old sale deeds, not rebuttal evidence; costs upheld; deposit directed within two weeks; suit to be disposed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to deposit costs of Rs.2,000/- within two weeks; I.As stand dismissed if not deposited; District Munsif directed to dispose of suit expeditiously. ¶37-38

Shanmugasundaram, Vs Rooba — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioners directed to deposit costs of Rs.2,000/- within two weeks; I.As stand dismissed if not deposited; District Munsif directed to dispose of suit expeditiously.

¶37-38

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- while allowing the petitioners' applications to recall PW1 and receive additional documents, given that the respondents had earlier recalled PW1 and marked documents without costs, and the petitioners claimed entitlement to rebuttal evidence as a matter of right.

¶29-31

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' affidavit did not claim that recall of their witness was necessary to adduce rebuttal evidence; instead, they sought to file 11 new documents, mostly sale deeds dated prior to 1988, which could have been filed earlier. The petitioners failed to plead that recall was needed for rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the argument that they were entitled to rebuttal evidence as a matter of right is without merit, and there is no error in the Trial Court's imposition of costs, especially given the delay in producing old documents.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to deposit the costs imposed by the Trial Court (Rs.2,000/-) to the credit of O.S.No.133 of 2006 within two weeks; failing which, the I.A.Nos.15, 13 & 14 of 2025 shall stand automatically dismissed. The District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.133 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶36-38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions challenging the imposition of costs of Rs.2,000/- by the Trial Court while allowing defendants' applications to recall a witness and produce additional documents. The Court held that the defendants' affidavit did not claim the recall was for rebuttal evidence but for filing old sale deeds that could have been produced earlier, and thus the imposition of costs was justified. The petitioners were directed to deposit the costs within two weeks, failing which the applications would stand dismissed. The Trial Court was also directed to dispose of the 2006 partition suit expeditiously.

¶1

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.30233 of 2025

¶7

1.Shanmugasundaram

¶8

2.Varadhaiyan

¶9

...Petitioners in all C.R.Ps’

-Vs-

1.Rooba

2.Saranya

3.Krishnasamy

4.Kokilavani

5.Mohan

...Respondents in all C.R.Ps’

¶17

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to modify the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.15, 13 & 14 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2006 dated 16.09.2025 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam, by deleting the portion of order imposing cost on the petitioners and pass such further orders.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Muthukumar in all C.R.Ps’ For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj in C.R.P.No.6161 of 2025

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

COMMON ORDER

¶22

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025

¶23

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed in I.A.Nos.15, 13 & 14 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2006 dated 16.09.2025 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mettupalayam, allowing the applications filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking to recall PW1 and receive certain documents, subject to the imposition of costs of Rs.2,000/-.

¶24

Respondents 1 and 2 had filed a suit for partition against the petitioners. In the suit, the recording of evidence was completed, and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an application seeking to reopen the case, recall PW1, and mark certain documents. These applications were allowed by the Trial Court, PW1 was recalled, and additional documents were marked.

¶25

Subsequently, the petitioners herein, arrayed as Defendants 3 and 5, filed applications seeking to reopen the case, recall PW1, and receive certain additional documents. The Trial Court allowed these applications by imposing costs as stated above. Aggrieved by the orders, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed before this Court.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Respondents 1 and 2 recalled PW1 and marked two documents, the petitioners were entitled to adduce rebuttal evidence as a matter of right. In such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not have imposed costs while allowing the applications filed by the petitioners.

¶30

A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of their applications would indicate that they did not claim that the recall of their witness was necessary to adduce additional rebuttal evidence. Instead, the affidavit merely stated that the petitioners wanted to file 11 new documents obtained by them. A perusal of list of documents would indicate that most of these documents are sale deeds dated prior to 1988. The documents could have been filed by petitioners earlier.

¶31

The petitioners failed to plead that for the purpose of leading rebuttal evidence their witness [3^rd Defendant] required to be recalled. The applications were primarily filed to introduce additional documents. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is without merit and I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court in imposition of costs, especially when there is delay on the part of petitioners in producing old documents.

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025

¶35

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶36

Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2006, this Court is inclined to direct the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.133 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

The petitioners are directed to deposit the costs as imposed by the Trial Court to the credit of O.S.No.133 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the cost is not deposited within time extended by this Court, the I.A.Nos.15, 13 & 14 of 2025, shall stand automatically dismissed.

¶38

With the above directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected, the civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.12.2025

cda

The District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam.

¶43

C.R.P.Nos.6160, 6161 & 6162 of 2025

¶44

4/4

¶45