← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/3501/2026disposed of

M.Arularasi v. G.Balakrishnan

2026-07-01Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-07-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE AND CMP NO. 15303 OF 2026,CMP NO. 15308 OF 2026,CRP NO. 3503 OF

1. M.Arularasi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G.Balakrishnan Respondent(s) CRP No. 3503 of 2026

1. M.Arularasi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. G.Balakrishnan Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order in IA No.6 of 2025 in OS No.178 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Hosur dated 08.01.2026 and thereby render justice. CRP No. 3503 of 2026 PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order in IA No.7 of 2025 in OS No.178 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Hosur dated 08.01.2026 and thereby render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Ms. E.Yuvarani

COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders both dated 08.01.2026 passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Hosur, in I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025 in O.S. No. 178 of 2020.

2. Under the aforesaid orders, the applications filed by the respondent, seeking leave of the Trial Court to receive additional documents, morefully disclosed in the said applications, have been allowed. The Trial Court, while allowing the applications, has observed that the documents for which leave is sought for by the respondent are original and true copies. Admittedly, the suit is in the part-heard stage.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court, under the impugned orders, has erroneously observed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of, whereas the said writ petition is still pending. The respondent has pleaded in the affidavits filed in support of I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 of 2025 that the additional documents sought to be marked as exhibits on the side of the respondent are necessary for disproving the claim of the petitioner in the suit. The petitioner had filed the suit for declaration of title, which has strongly been contested by the respondent before the Trial Court.

4. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner can very well raise the very same contentions that have been raised through these Civil Revision Petitions during the cross-examination of the respondent's witness, the question of interfering with the impugned orders does not arise, that too, when the documents for which the respondent had sought leave of the Trial Court are all original and true copies.

5. The question of granting stay of the impugned orders also does not arise since the suit is of the year 2020 and the petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit. Any prudent plaintiff will only seek early disposal of the suit and will not seek to delay the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not interfering with the impugned orders and, in case, the Trial Court had made any erroneous observation with regard to the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise all those objections during the cross-examination of the respondent's witness at the time of trial.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not entertaining these Civil Revision Petitions, and these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections with regard to the veracity of the documents sought to be received through I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 of

2025 in O.S. No. 178 of 2020 during the cross-examination of the respondent's witness at the time of trial. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

01-07-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To The Principal Subordinate Court, Hosur.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

ab AND CMP NO. 15303 OF 2026,CMP NO.

15308 OF 2026,CRP NO.

01-07-2026