Smt.Nalini Parthasarathy And Another v. Vijay Rangarajan

A.No.2347 of 2023 in TOS.No.25 of 2018 R.N.MANJULA,J.

The plaintiffs have filed this application to receive additional documents.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiffs are in the habit of filing repeated applications and this is the third of such kind, where the plaintiffs have sought permission to receive some more documents.

3. The plaintiffs are expected to produce all the relevant documents at the earliest possible time and they should not take advantage of filing repeated application and seek permission of this Court to receive documents in piecemeal.

4. Though the hardship of the respondent / defendant in this regard is understandable, in order to avoid any further delay, this Court prefers to allow this application subject to proof and relevancy. Page No.1 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.N.MANJULA,J.

gsk

5. Accordingly, this application is allowed subject to proof and relevancy. The respondent / defendant is at liberty to raise objection, if in his opinion the documents are irrelevant and inadmissible. 05.06.2023 gsk A.No.2347 of 2023 in TOS.No.25 of 2018 Page No.2 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis