Allowed¶29

Ebanesar, v. Manoharan

Madras HC11 Mar 2026CMP(MD)/19797/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of original document Ex.A11 sale deed; substitution by certified copies; CMP(MD) 19797 of 2025 in SA(MD) 293 of 2021; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P.B. Balaji; Additional District Munsif Court Kuzhithurai; O.S.No.293/2021; second appeal pending; no serious prejudice; agriculturist claim; son's medical expenses; Registry to return original within a week; advocates H. Arumugam (petitioner) and K.N. Thambi (first respondent).

What did the court decide?

Return of the original document Ex.A11 to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week, with the certified copy already furnished standing substituted on record. ¶29

Ebanesar, Vs Manoharan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Return of the original document Ex.A11 to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week, with the certified copy already furnished standing substituted on record.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the original of Ex.A11 (a sale deed) should be returned to the petitioner, substituting certified copies obtained from this Court, while the second appeal SA(MD)No.293 of 2021 remains pending. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The first respondent's objection that the original cannot be returned pending final adjudication of the second appeal is rejected; the document pertains neither to the suit property nor to the appeal, so no serious prejudice arises.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Returning the original of Ex.A11 causes no serious prejudice to the respondents because the property which is the subject matter of Ex.A11 does not concern the suit property.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered; since the appellant has already furnished a certified copy of Ex.A11, the Registry shall return the original to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), P.B. Balaji J. - CMP(MD)No.19797 of 2025 in SA(MD)No.293 of 2021 (order dated 11/03/2026): Return of original documents. The petitioner, the successful plaintiff before the first appellate Court (which had reversed the trial Court) and a respondent in the pending second appeal, sought return of Ex.A11, the original sale deed executed by him in favour of his wife, exhibited in O.S.No.293 of 2021 (Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai) solely to establish his claim of being an agriculturist. Held: the property under Ex.A11 neither concerns the suit property nor the appeal, so its return during the pendency of the second appeal causes no serious prejudice to the respondents; the first respondent's objection based on pendency of the second appeal was rejected. Petition allowed; Registry directed to return the original to the petitioner's counsel within a week, the certified copy already furnished remaining substituted. The original was stated to be needed for the son's medical expenses.

¶1

CMP(MD). No.19797 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 11/03/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

CMP(MD). No.19797 of 2025 in SA(MD)No.293 of 2021

Ebanesar

... Petitioner

Vs.

Manoharan,

¶11

Suma Bai,

¶12

Latha Florence,

¶13

John Andreesan, ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER :- To return the Original Documents marked as Ex-A-11 in the suit in O.S.No.293/2021 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai by substituting the certified copies obtained from this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.N.Thambi, Advocate for R1

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

CMP(MD). No.19797 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed for return of the Original Documents marked as Ex-A-11 in the suit in O.S.No.293 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, by substituting the certified copies obtained from this Court

¶21

I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶22

C.M.P.(MD)No.19797 of 2025 has been taken out by the

¶23

respondent, successful plaintiff before the first appellate Court, which reversed the findings of the trial Court, for return of Ex.A11. Ex.A11 is the original of a sale deed executed by the petitioner herein, in favour of his wife. The said document was exhibited in evidence only to establish the plaintiff's claim that he is an agriculturist.

¶24

The property which is subject matter of Ex.A11 is not concerning the suit property. Hence, I do not see any serious prejudice being caused to the respondents by returning the original of Ex.A11. It is 2/4

¶25

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

¶26

CMP(MD). No.19797 of 2025

¶27

now stated that the the original sale is required for the purposes of meeting the son's medical expenses.

¶28

Though Mr. K.N.Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent objected to the application being allowed on the ground that pending the second appeal, the original cannot be returned without final adjudication, I do not see any serious prejudice being caused to the respondents. Admittedly, this document does not pertain to the property which is subject matter of the suit property and the property in Ex.A11 is not also concerning the appeal.

¶29

Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. As the appellant has already furnished certified copy of Ex.A11, the Registry shall return the original in Ex.A11 to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week.

11.03.2026

3/4

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

¶34

CMP(MD). No.19797 of 2025

¶35

P.B.BALAJI,J

¶36