K.Shriramulu v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 1345 of 2025 and CMP No.7924 of 2025 K.Shriramulu S/o. Late. Kuppusamy Naidu, No. 14/24, Bajanai Koil Street, Ozhuppakkam, Pakkam Post, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector O/o The Collectorate, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
2. The Tahsildar O/o Taluk Office, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist.
3. Sarangapani Naidu S/o. Chinnasamy Naidu Chittamor Village, Vilanganur Post, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist.
4. Krishnan S/o. Sarangapani Nadu Chittamor Village, Vilanganur Post, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order 03.02.2025 in I.A No. 8/2024 in OS No. 75/2012 on the Honble District Munsif, at Madhuranthagam.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R.Natarajan For Respondent(s):
Mr.N.Muthuvel, Govt Advocate for R1 and R2.
Mr. S.Sriram for R4 R3 died
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to mark the Xerox copies of the plaint documents.
2. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.75 of 2012 seeking declaration that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to issue patta in respect of the suit property in his favour. The petitioner also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession.
3. The instant application has been filed by the petitioner to permit him to mark xerox copies of the plaint documents on the ground that he misplaced the bag containing the original plaint documents during transit. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come before this court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaint documents were misplaced by the petitioner during transit and therefore, he is not in possession of the original documents. In such circumstances, the petitioner may be permitted to lead secondary evidence by marking xerox copies of the plaint documents.
5. The plaint documents 1 and 2 are the registered settlement deeds. Therefore, the petitioner can very well get certified copy of the said documents and mark the same before the Trial Court. The plaint documents 6 to 9 are the orders passed by the government authorities. Even in respect of those documents, the petitioner can get certified copies of the same from the authorities concerned and file it before the court, by following the procedure contemplated under the Civil Rules of Practice. The petitioner already filed an application seeking issuance of subopena to the concerned officer for production of documents, however, they have not appeared before the court. If the official concerned failed to appear before the court in response to the summons issued by the court, the petitioner is entitled to take coercive steps
against them. Even though it was stated by the petitioner that the plaint documents were misplaced during transit, he has not substantiated the same by leading any evidence. If any plaint documents were misplaced during transit, the petitioner should have given police complaint. The petitioner has not produced the document to show that he made sincere efforts to find out the original documents allegedly lost during transit. In such circumstances, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the position and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned order to interfere the same.
6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20-01-2026 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MST To The District Munsif, Madhuranthagam.
S.SOUNTHAR J.
MST 20-01-2026