The Official Receiver v. M. Chinnaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.07.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP.No.3873 of 2025 The Official Receiver, District Court Complex, Royakotta Road, Krishnagiri District.
...Petitioner
Vs.
M.Chinnaraj
...Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the Docket order dated 10.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in I.P.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari, SC, for Ms.V.Srimathi Page No.1 of 5
ORDER
The Docket order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in I.P.No.9 of 2013 is being challenged by the Official receiver, District Court, Krishnagiri before this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though applications were filed to reopen the evidence on the side of the respondent to permit leading of evidence, the Trial court, without any application of mind and without assigning any reasons, allowed the same. Learned counsel further submits that, merely because no counter has been filed, the trial Court should not have allowed the application without addressing the necessity for permitting the evidence to be reopened on the side of the respondent herein. Page No.2 of 5
4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that, the document which have been filed along with the application alone may be permitted to be received and a right of cross examination being made available to the official receiver, with regard to the documents that are now sought to be produced on the side of the respondent.
5. Admittedly, the revision petitioner, despite ample opportunities being given to file counter before the trial court, has not chosen to file a counter to oppose the application. Therefore, I do not see any impropriety in the order of the Trial Court, allowing the application without a speaking order. However, it is seen that the documents that are sought to be marked or placed reliance upon are only documents which are already listed out in I.A.No.3 of 2023 filed by the respondent.
6. Therefore, I do not find any serious prejudice being caused to the revision petitioner who can always choose to cross-examine the respondent with regard to the documents that are now sought to be marked.
Page No.3 of 5
7. In the light of the above, no interference is required with the impugned order of the trial court and accordingly, this Civil revision petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the respondent to mark the documents that have been relied upon in I.A.No.3 of 2023 and further liberty is also granted to the revision petitioner/official receiver to crossexamine the respondent with regard to the documents that are permitted to be marked. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.07.2025 skt Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No To:
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.
2. The Official Receiver, District Court Complex, Royakotta Road, Krishnagiri District.
Page No.4 of 5
P.B. BALAJI , J.
skt and CMP.No.3873 of 2025 23.07.2025 Page No.5 of 5