V.K.Chandrasekaran v. K.Muthu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP Nos.14398 & 14401 of 2025

1. V.K.Chandrasekaran S/o. Kandasamy, Kondappanaickenpatti Village, Salem-008.

2. K.Ravichandran S/o. Kandasamy, Kondappanaickenpatti Village, Salem-008.

..Petitioners in both petitions Vs

1. K.Muthu W/o. Krishnan, D.No.114, Raja Street, 8th Ward, Kondappanaickenpatti Village, Salem-8, Salem Taluk, Salem District.

2. K.Murugan S/o. Krishnan, Puthooran Thottam, Chinnagollapatti, Ayyamperumampatti Village, Salem-636 008, Salem Taluk and District.

3. A.Ramachandran S/o. Late Arumugam, O.D.No.4/173, N.No.544, AR Garden, Puthooran Thottam, Mitta Ayyamperumampatti Village, Chinnakollapatti, Salem-008.

..Respondents in both petitions

COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 27.01.2025 in IA Nos. 13 & 14 of 2024 in OS No. 366 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem.

In both Petitions :

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.M.Jayachandran COMMON ORDER Challenging the common impugned order passed in IA Nos.14 & 13 of 2024 in OS No.366 of 2019 dated 27.01.2025 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem, these civil revision petitions are filed.

2. The plaintiffs filed applications before the trial court to reopen and recall PW1 for further examination. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial judge holding that already sufficient opportunities were given, but now they want to introduce new documents which was not been disclosed in the pleadings and so they are not entitled and hence dismissed the applications. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs have preferred these revision petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that pending suit proceedings, the defendants have caused interference and so they gave a complaint and also forwarded the complaint to the Chief Minister Cell, for that

purpose they want to reopen and recall PW1. But now they came forward to produce ten documents on the side of the plaintiffs in order to prove the right and title of the property and also to establish that the first defendant has no right and title over the property.

4. According to the respondent counsel, the evidence was completed and the case is posted for arguments. Now they submits that pending suit, interference was caused by the defendants. To that effect they gave a complaint in the year 2022 and they also produced documents along with acknowledgment and photographs and the notice issued to the police officials and also produced the sale deed in the name of the defendants and copy of the written statement filed by the second defendant in O.S.No.148 of 2010. Some of the documents came into existence pending proceedings so there was no necessity arose for them. Now the necessity arose for them to produce the same on their side, since it happened after the suit, there was no pleadings to that effect at time of filing of the plaint. Therefore, the objections raised by the respondents are not sustainable. The order passed by the trial judge is not sustainable.

5. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 in I.A.Nos. 13 and 14 of 2024 in O.S.No.356 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Salem are set aside. The plaintiffs are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings. The trial judge is

directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

07-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL To

1. The II Additional District Munsif, Salem.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

MTL 07-04-2026