Disposed¶34

Muthusamy Gounder (Died) 1.Aruchamy Gounder v. Arulmigu Senraya Perumal Temple

Madras HC3 Jul 2026CRP/3589/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition, Madras High Court, re-opening of defendants' side evidence, imposition of Rs.15,000/- cost held not excessive, cost for allowing re-open application, trial management and costs, O.S. No.80 of 2015 before V Additional District Judge Coimbatore, suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over more than 5 acres, temple plaintiff, petitioners permitted to examine defence witnesses on payment of cost within two days, notice to respondent dispensed with, connected CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioners may examine the witnesses on their behalf on payment of the imposed cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent within two days; connected CMP closed; no costs. ¶34

Muthusamy Gounder (Died) 1.Aruchamy Gounder Vs Arulmigu Senraya Perumal Temple — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the cost of Rs.15,000/- imposed by the Trial Court while allowing re-opening of the defendants' side evidence is excessive and warrants interference by this Court.

¶24

Court's answer

The cost of Rs.15,000/- ordered by the Trial Court for allowing the re-opening application cannot be construed to be excessive as claimed by the petitioners, particularly where the suit schedule property measures an extent of more than 5 acres.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the imposition of cost by the Trial Court under the impugned order; there is no merit in the petition.

¶4

Key takeaways

On payment of the cost imposed under the impugned order within the stipulated time (two days), the petitioners are allowed to examine the witnesses on their behalf in the suit, and the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore shall act accordingly.ratio¶30
Since no adverse orders are passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.), CRP No. 3589 of 2026: Revision against the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore's order dated 05.06.2026 in I.A. No.09 of 2026 in O.S. No.80 of 2015, which allowed the defendants' application to re-open defendants' side evidence on a cost of Rs.15,000/-. Held: the cost was not excessive, the suit (by a temple for declaration of title and recovery of possession) concerning property measuring more than 5 acres, and the High Court declined to interfere with the imposition of cost. The petitioners were permitted to examine the witnesses on their behalf upon payment of the cost to the respondent within two days; notice to the respondent was dispensed with, the connected CMP was closed, and no costs were awarded.

¶1

CRP No. 3589 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3589 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 15624 OF 2026

¶6

Muthusamy Gounder (Died)

¶7

1.Aruchamy Gounder

¶8

Apachi Gounder

¶9

Kittuchamy Gounder

¶10

Valliammal

¶11

M.Murugesan

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

Arulmigu Senraya Perumal Temple Rep by its fit person, Senrampalayam Hamlet, Devarayapuram Village, Kinathukadavu Taluk, Coimbatore District

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

To set aside the fair and final order dated 05.06.2026 made in IA.No.09 of 2026 in OS.No.80 of 2015 on the file of the Ld V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Siddarth Sridhar

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned

¶21

order dated 05.06.2026 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A. No.09 of 2026 in O.S. No.80 of 2015.

¶22

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

¶23

CRP No. 3589 of 2026

¶24

2.Under the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit seeking to re-open the defendants’ side evidence for examination of witnesses has been allowed by imposing a cost of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioners are aggrieved only by the imposition of cost in this petition.

¶25

3.Admittedly, the application has been filed only to re-open the defendants’ side evidence, which was closed earlier for the fault of the petitioners/defendants. The Trial Court has ordered cost of only Rs.15,000/- for allowing I.A., which cannot be construed to be excessive as claimed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the suit schedule property measures an extent of more than 5 acres. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioners.

¶26

4.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the imposition of cost by the Trial Court under the impugned order. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.

¶27

5.However, after this Court passed the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, would now submit that the petitioners are willing to examine the witnesses on their behalf pursuant to the impugned order and are also willing to pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- to the

¶28

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

¶29

CRP No. 3589 of 2026

¶30

respondent within a period of two days from today. The petitioners, on payment of the cost imposed under the impugned order within the stipulated time fixed by this Court, are allowed to examine the witnesses on their behalf in the suit.

¶31

The V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore shall act accordingly.

¶32