Sarasu Alias Saraswathi v. Hari Easwaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 6373 OF 2026
1. Sarasu alias Saraswathi W/o.Late Palani NO.5A, 2nd cross New 10th Street, Jothi Nagar Thiruvottiyur Chennai-600019 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Hari Easwaran S/o.late Easwaran NO.672, Temple Tower 6th Floor, Anna Salai Chennai-600035 2.Sankaralingam s/o.Late Singaravelu No.4, New Thandavaraya Gramani Street Old Washermenpet Chennai-600021 3.Arumugam S/o.Deivasigamani No.33/31, Brindavan Nagar Ernavoor, Chennai-600057 4.M.Rajasekar s/o.Madasamy Nadar NO.5, Jothi Nagar, 5th Cross Street Thiruvottiyur Chennai-600017 5.REPCO Home Finance Ltd.
Rep. by its Chief Manager REPCO Tower, Door NO.33 North Usman Road T.Nagar Chennai-600017 6.G.Senthil Murugan Fathers Name not known Plot No.2, West Avenue MKB Nagar Vyasarpadi Chennai-600039 1 / 6
7.The Chairman Tamilnadu Electricity Board Anna Salai Chennai 8.The Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Board Ernavoor CEDO/North TANGEDCO Chennai-600019 9.The Corporation of Chennai Rep. by its Commissioner Rippon Buildings Chennai-600003 10.The Assistant Engineer Corporation of Chennai Thiruvottiyur Zone-I Chennai-600003 Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order passed in IA No.5 of 2023 in OS No.63/2017 dt. 19.12.2025 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur and allow the CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
MR.M.Tamizavel For Respondent(s):
Ms.C.Suraj For R4
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in IA No.5 of 2023 in OS No.63/2017 dated 19.12.2025 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.
2 / 6
2. The petitioner herein filed IA No.5 of 2023 in OS No.63/2017 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.under, under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC to issue subpoena to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur and to substantiate the veracity and validity of the sale deed dated 15.09.2010 in Document No.1482 of 2011 and Sale Deed dated 30.09.2016 in Document No.6912 of 2016 and the Town Survey Field Register Extract dated 13.07.2014 and patta register book issued and registered by them. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the said application by holding that the petitioner cannot fill up the lacuna by filing this application at argument stage without filing reopen petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit for the relief of declaration in respect of property as described in the plaint in schedule with an extent of 5287 sq.fts. As on date suit is contested by both parties. Now the case is posted for final arguments; at that time, the plaintiff has preferred the application to issue subpoena to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur and to substantiate the veracity and validity of the sale deed dated 15.09.2010 in Document No.1482 of 2011 and Sale Deed dated 30.09.2016 in Document No.6912 of 2016 and the Town Survey Field Register Extract dated 13.07.2014 and patta register book issued and registered by them. 3 / 6
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is fourth round of litigation already suit filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 229 of 2008 was dismissed. Against which appeal was preferred in A.S No. 49 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Ponneri. Again he filed the suit, against the respondents who is defendant in that suit. Therefore, the Court below rightly held that reason to issue subpoena to the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur is not justifiable and he/she is not competent to depose about the validity of the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sale deeds relied on by the defendants there is variation in extent hence he want to prove the same.
6. As discussed above, already suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant already been dismissed. Again the petitioner/plaintiff has come forward with present suit and that he has not proved her case on own merits. Therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner to issue subpoena to Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Thiruvottiyur,, that too after closure of evidence is not acceptable one and the same was rightly considered by the Trial Court which needs no interference. Further, the Trial Court is directed to complete the Trial within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further both parties are directed to cooperate for the Trial proceedings 4 / 6
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Pending petition(s), if any, is/are closed.
27-03-2026 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To
1. The District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.
2. The Section Officer, V. R Section, High court, Madras. 5 / 6
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
pbl AND CMP NO. 6373 OF 27-03-2026 6 / 6