Dismissed¶37

K.Paramasivam v. S.Kathirvel

Madras HC24 Jul 2026CRP/4182/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Abdul Quddhose J., CRP No. 4182 of 2026, decided 24-07-2026: revision under Article 227 against refusal to reopen defendants' side evidence in O.S. No. 170 of 2024 (Sub Court, Palladam), a 2024 money-recovery suit founded on a mortgage deed; reopening sought at arguments stage after three hearings on grounds of illiteracy and allegedly fabricated mortgage deed; earlier reopening allowed (D.W.2, D.W.3, Exhibits B4-B6) and Order XXVI Rule 10 application to recall Sub Registrar's register dismissed; insufficient cause, belated application, protraction of proceedings; CRP dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No infirmity is found in the impugned order: no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for filing the application and the application was filed belatedly. ¶33

K.Paramasivam Vs S.Kathirvel — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing I.A. No. 5 of 2025 (application to reopen the defendants' side evidence) suffers from any infirmity such that the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶33

Court's answer

No infirmity is found in the impugned order: no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioners for filing the application and the application was filed belatedly.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners/defendants have been protracting the proceedings.

¶35

Key takeaways

A party who considers the mortgage deed underlying a money-recovery suit to be a fabricated document ought to file the interlocutory application at the earliest point of time, at least immediately after filing of the written statement, not at the arguments stage.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — challenge to order dated 29.04.2025 of the Sub Court, Palladam, in I.A. No. 5 of 2025 in O.S. No. 170 of 2024 dismissing the defendants' application to reopen the defendants' side evidence in a suit for recovery of money based on a mortgage deed — plaintiffs' evidence closed on 21.01.2025; first defendant examined as D.W.1 on 07.02.2025; earlier reopening already permitted (D.W.2, a third party, and D.W.3, the defendants' son, examined; Exhibits B4 to B6 marked); an application under Order XXVI Rule 10 to recall the Sub Registrar's register pertaining to the mortgage deed had been dismissed — I.A. No. 5 of 2025 filed at the arguments stage, after three hearings, through new counsel, alleging illiteracy and erroneous admission of signature in the mortgage deed — Held: no sufficient cause shown; application belated; petitioners protracting the proceedings; a party alleging the mortgage deed is fabricated ought to have moved at the earliest, at least immediately after filing of the written statement — Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.

¶1

CRP No. 4182 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 4182 of 2026

¶6

K.Paramasivam S/o. Karuppannan D.No. 2-382, Naduvelappam Palayam Poomalur Village Palladam Taluk Tiruppur Dist

¶7

P.Murugambal W/o. Paramasivam D.No. 2-382, Naduvelappam Palayam Poomalur Village Palladam Taluk Tiruppur Dist

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

S.Kathirvel S/o. Subramaniam No. 27-2/25, Balaji Extention Ramanathapuram Coimbatore

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Impugned order dt. 29.4.2025 passed in IA No.5 of 2025 in OS No. 170 of 2024 by the Learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Palladam, Tiruppur Dist

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan

¶15

For Respondent(s): Notice dispensed with

¶16

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

¶17

CRP No. 4182 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Sub Court, Palladam, in I.A. No. 5 of 2025 in O.S. No. 170 of 2024.

¶20

In the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioners, who are

¶21

the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 170 of 2024, seeking to reopen the defendants’ side evidence has been dismissed.

¶22

While dismissing the application, the Trial Court has given the following reasons:

¶23

a) The plaintiffs' side evidence was closed on 21.01.2025 and it was kept open for defendants side evidence;

¶24

b) The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 on 07.02.2025 and thereafter, an application was filed by the defendants to reopen the case for further defendants side evidence and one third party was examined as D.W.2;

¶25

c) Likewise, the son of the defendants was examined as D.W.3 and through him Exhibits B4 to B6 were marked;

¶26

d) Once again, the defendants had filed an interlocutory application under Order XXVI Rule 10 to recall the register from the Sub Registrar Office

¶27

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

¶28

CRP No. 4182 of 2026

¶29

pertaining to the mortgage deed and the same was dismissed;

¶30

e) The case was posted for arguments of both sides and after three hearings I.A. No.5 of 2025 was filed by the defendants through a new counsel by stating that due to the illiteracy of the defendants, they had erroneously admitted their signature in the subject mortgage deed and hence, there became a necessity for further examination of the defendants.

¶31

Since sufficient cause was not shown by the petitioners/defendants, the

¶32

application was dismissed. The suit has been filed for recovery of money based on a mortgage deed. The suit is of the year 2024. Admittedly, the present application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, was filed only during the arguments stage. If the petitioners/defendants were of the opinion that the mortgage deed based on which the suit was filed is a fabricated document, they ought to have filed the interlocutory application at the earliest point of time, at least immediately after filing of the written statement.

¶33

As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners/defendants have been protracting the proceedings. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order as no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioners for filing the application and the said application has also been filed belatedly.

¶34

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

¶35

CRP No. 4182 of 2026

¶36