Mathivanan v. Saraswathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM Civil Revision Petition Nos.263, 264, 271 of 2024

1. Mathivanan

2. Elangovan

3. Amirtham ... Petitioners in all CRPs Vs Saraswathi ... Respondent in all CRPs Prayer in all cases : All the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and final order dated 24.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022, I.A.No.7 of 2022, I.A.No.8 of 2022 in O.S.No.559 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur.

For Petitioners : Mr D.Sathya in all CRPs 1/6

COMMON ORDER Challenging the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Perambalur in I.A.Nos.6, 7 & 8 of 2022 in O.S.No.559 of 2014, the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.559 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur. After completion of Trial, when the suit was posted for argument, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.6, 7, 8 of 2022 to reopen, recall and receive the documents. The learned counsel further submitted that already the plaintiff had filed application to mark additional documents and the same was allowed on 06.08.2019. and thereafter, she had filed an application to re-examine DW1 and the same was dismissed on 24.03.2022. Now, at the stage of argument, only in order to drag on the proceedings the respondent/plaintiff had filed the applications. But the Trial Court allowed the applications at the cost of Rs.500/- each, against which, the present revision petitions have been filed. 2/6

3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records carefully.

4. On perusal of records, it is found that the respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.559 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Perambalur against the petitioners/defendants for permanent injunction. After completion of Trial, when the suit was posted for argument, the respondent/plaintiff filed the applications in I.A.No.6, 7 & 8 of 2022 to reopen, recall and receive the documents and the same were allowed on cost. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

5. It is noticed that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. As the plaintiff found some documents pertaining to the suit property, which are important documents to establish her title, she filed applications with affidavits to reopen, recall and receive documents. Though it is filed belatedly, the Trial Court allowed the 3/6

applications at the cost of Rs.500/- each as the documents are relevant to adjudicate the issue before the Trial Court. The procedure is being made to render justice to reopen and recall the parties and to receive the relevant documents are needed to adjudicate the case. Therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders and I find no merit in the revisions.

6. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, considering the long pendency of the suit, the learned Principal District Munsif, Perambalur, is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.559 of 2014 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

21.02.2024 Index: yes/no Internet:yes/no mrp 4/6

To The Principal District Munsif, The Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

5/6

V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

mrp C.R.P.No.263, 264, 271 of 2024 21.02.2024 6/6