T.K. Boopathy v. M. Selvanathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 568 of 2026 and CMP.No.3100 of 2026 T.K. Boopathy ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. M. Selvanathan

2. M. Senthilnathan

3. M. Govindanathan

4. B. Narayanan ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order in IA No.4 of 2025 in OS No.531 of 2015 dated 20.11.2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Shangar Murali for M/s.D.Kalaiselvi

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to produce certain documents namely judgment and decree passed in S.A.Nos. 1171 and 1172 of 2014 involving petitioner herein/1st defendant and predecessor in title of the respondents.

2. The petition filed by the respondents was opposed by the petitioner herein mainly on the ground that the judgment and decree passed in second appeal are not relevant to the facts of the present case since the review application filed by the petitioner is pending disposal before the High Court.

3. The trial court, by impugned order, allowed the document to be received by the court. However, in the last paragraph of the order, it is made clear that the respondents/petitioners before the trial court shall establish proper custody of the document and its evidentiary value at the time of trial. It is also observed that the document shall be marked only if the court is satisfied regarding its proof and relevancy. At the stage of considering the application to receive the documents, the court need not go to the question of relevancy and the same can be considered at the time of marking. The petitioner is entitled to object to the marking by raising objection with regard to the relevancy. Even then, the court can mark the document subject to proof and relevancy and the relevancy of the document can be considered at the time of final disposal. I do

not find any error in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

11-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To The Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

NR CRP No. 568 of 2026 and CMP.No.3100 of 2026 11-02-2026