Dismissed¶29

A K Nizam v. a.K.Jaffar Ali

Madras HC4 Feb 2026CRP/3113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, S. Sounthar J., CRP No. 3113 of 2025 / CMP.No.17408 of 2025 (04-02-2026), Article 227 Constitution of India; revision against dismissal of I.A.No.5/2025 in O.S.No.2/2016 (partition suit) by 2nd Additional District Judge, Tindivanam; production of release deed and sale deed of 2011 sought after trial concluded and case posted for arguments; affidavit silent on relevancy; reopening/recall applications I.A.Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025 already dismissed (04.07.2025) and final; no convincing reason for belated production; no irregularity or illegality in trial court order; revision dismissed, no cost.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.5 of 2025 did not state anything regarding the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced to the dispute involved in the suit. ¶24

A K Nizam Vs a.K.Jaffar Ali — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dismissed I.A.No.5/2025 filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant, after the trial was over, seeking to produce a release deed and a sale deed of the year 2011. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.5 of 2025 did not state anything regarding the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced to the dispute involved in the suit.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

No purpose would be served by allowing I.A.No.5 of 2025, since the petitions to reopen the case and recall the witness for the purpose of marking the documents had already been dismissed by the trial court and had attained finality, and that dismissal was not challenged.

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitions to reopen the case and recall the witness for the purpose of marking the documents were already dismissed by the trial court and had attained finality.ratio¶29
The petitioner did not give any convincing reason for failing to produce the documents at the time of trial; consequently, no irregularity or illegality was found in the order passed by the trial court.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (S. Sounthar, J.), CRP No. 3113 of 2025 with CMP.No.17408 of 2025, decided 04-02-2026 — Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by A.K.Nizam (petitioner/2nd defendant) against the fair and final order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Tindivanam dismissing I.A.No.5/2025 in O.S.No.2/2016 (partition suit filed by A.K.Jaffar Ali), whereby the petitioner sought to produce a release deed and a sale deed of the year 2011 after the trial was over and the suit stood posted for arguments. Held, dismissing the revision petition: (i) the affidavit in support of I.A.No.5 of 2025 stated nothing regarding the relevancy of the documents to the dispute; (ii) the companion petitions I.A.Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025 to reopen the case and recall DW1 had already been dismissed by order dated 04.07.2025, gone unchallenged and attained finality, so allowing I.A.No.5 of 2025 would serve no purpose; and (iii) the petitioner gave no convincing reason for his failure to produce the documents at the time of trial — hence no irregularity or illegality in the trial court's order. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no cost.

¶1

CRP No. 3113 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 3113 of 2025 and

¶7

CMP.No.17408 of 2025

A.K.Nizam

..Petitioner(s)

A.K.Jaffar Ali

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order of the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Tindivanam made in I.A.No.5/2025 in O.S.No.2/2016 dated 2006-2025.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): M.R.Thangavel For Respondent(s): M/s.V.V.Sairam

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant seeking to produce certain documents.

¶17

The respondent herein filed a suit for partition against the petitioner

¶18

and others. The trial in the suit was over and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, instant application has been filed by the petitioner

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRP No. 3113 of 2025

¶22

seeking to produce a release deed and a sale deed of the year 2011. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this court to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, would submit that the documents to be produced by the petitioner are vital documents to prove their case and the said documents were found by the petitioner only recently. Therefore, opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to produce the document and mark the same before the trial court.

¶24

It is seen from the impugned order that petitioner/2nd defendant was examined as DW1 on 05-03-2025 and 13-03-2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA.No.4 of 2025 to examine another witness in his side and the same was allowed. Based on the said order, DW2 was examined. Even at that stage, it was stated by the petitioner that he had got some other documents to be produced. Thereafter, instant application has been filed seeking to produce the documents. In the affidavit filed in support of the IA.No.5 of 2025, the petitioner has not stated anything regarding the relevancy of the document produced by him to dispute involved in this suit.

¶25

It is also seen from the typed set that in order to mark the documents, the petitioner filed two applications in IA.Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025, seeking to reopen the case and recall DW1. Those applications were dismissed by the trial court by order dated 04.07.2025. The petitioner has not challenged the order

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRP No. 3113 of 2025

¶29

passed by the trial court dismissing the IA.Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025. In such circumstances, no purpose will be served by allowing the IA.No.5 of 2025 as petitions to reopen the case and recall witness for the purpose of marking his document were already dismissed by the trial court and the same had attained finality. In any event, the petitioner has not given the convincing reason for his failure to produce the document at the time of trial. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost.

¶30

04-02-2026

¶31

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr

¶32

¶33

The II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam

¶34

__________ Page3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36