Ashokpandian Vs M.Pirasekara Pandian (Died) 1. M.Ananth Pandian

PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the Docket order dated 02.02.2026 passed in Unnumbered IA No. of 2026 in OS No.199 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivaikundam and allow the present Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.

¶12

For Petitioner : MrR.J.Karthick

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the rejection order dated 02.02.2026 passed in the unnumbered I.A. of 2026 in O.S. No.199 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivaikundam. The extract of the order of the trial Court reads as under:

¶15

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

¶16

“ This case is pending from the year of 2010 and as it is the target case of more than 15 years old case and PW.1 to PW.3 witness were examined on this side of the plaintiff from 03.06.2023 to 28.10.2024. Thereby the plaintiff has taken more than one year time and then this petition is filed after posted for arguments and for appearance of plaintiff for arguments and for arguments. Which reveals that this plaintiff is intended to drag on the proceedings for the reasons known to him.

¶17

Considering all these, this Court is not inclined to taken up this petition. For the reasons, petition is rejected.”

¶18

The petitioner herein filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. Nil of 2026 in O.S. No.199 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Srivaikundam, seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of examining the Block Development Officer and other witnesses. The trial Court rejected the application.

¶19

According to the revision petitioner, he seeks to file certain revenue documents and examine government officials. However, the trial Court rightly noted that the suit is of the year 2010, pending for more than 15 years, and that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were already examined from 03.06.2023 to 28.10.2024. The application was filed belatedly, after completion of evidence and when the matter was posted for arguments.

¶20

In view of the above, no sufficient reason has been shown for reopening the evidence at this belated stage. Entertaining such a petition would cause further delay in a long-pending suit. Considering the facts and

¶21

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

¶22

circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶23