Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Piyush Manush Sethia And 2 Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA AND CS NO. 481 OF 2012,A NO. 3469 OF 2025,A NO. 3470 OF 2025
1. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.
(rep By Its Executive Vice President - Secretarial And Legal - Mr.M.Raman) Off. No.9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086.
Applicant(s) Vs
1. PIYUSH MANUSH SETHIA and 2 others C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
2.Ms.Lakshmi Priya C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
3.Mr.Chythenyen Nanda Salem Citizens Forum
Respondent(s) CS No. 481 of 2012
1. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.
(rep By Its Executive Vice President - Secretarial And Legal - Mr.M.Raman) Off. No.9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086.
Applicant(s) Vs
1. Piyush Manush Sethia And 2 Others C/o.Monitor Group Of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan St. Salem 636 001.
2.Lakshmi Priya C/o.Monitor Group Of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan St. Salem 636 001.
3.Chythenyen Nanda Salem Citizens Forum C/o.Monitor Group Of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan St. Salem 636 001.
Respondent(s) A No. 3469 of 2025
1. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.
(rep By Its Executive Vice President - Secretarial And Legal - Mr.M.Raman) Off. No.9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086.
Applicant(s) Vs
1. PIYUSH MANUSH SETHIA and 2 others C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
2.Ms.Lakshmi Priya C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
3.Mr.Chythenyen Nanda Salem Citizens Forum Respondent(s) A No. 3470 of 2025
1. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.
(rep By Its Executive Vice President - Secretarial And Legal - Mr.M.Raman) Off. No.9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 086.
Applicant(s) Vs
1. PIYUSH MANUSH SETHIA and 2 others C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
2.Ms.Lakshmi Priya
C/o.Monitor Group of Environmental Crimes, 19, Dr.Ramanathan Street, Salem 636 001.
3.Mr.Chythenyen Nanda Salem Citizens Forum Respondent(s) PRAYER To permit the Applicant to reopen the Plaintiffs further evidence in the above C.S.No.481 of 2012.
A No. 3469 of 2025 PRAYER To permit the Applicant to recall the witness of the Applicant/Plaintiff to give evidence in the above C.S.No.481 of 2012.
A No. 3470 of 2025 PRAYER To condone the delay of filing the documents mentioned in this Judges Summons in the above C.S.No.481 of 2012.
In all applications:
For Applicant(s):
M/s.P.Vasudevan For Respondent(s):
M/S.D.Nagasaila COMMON ORDER These applications have been filed to reopen the plaintiff's side evidence and recall the witness PW.1 and to receive the additional document as evidence
on the side of the plaintiffs.
2.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit for defamation has been filed by the plaintiff and during the cross-examination of PW.1, he was confronted with the fact that they did not have the consent order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for the operation of the plant and discharge of the sewage or trade effluent in accordance with section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. So it is claimed by the applicant that it has necessitated him to file these documents as additional evidence by way of reopening and recalling the witness PW.1.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendants vehemently objected stating that these documents could have been in the custody of the plaintiff and he did not take any steps to introduce these documents at the earliest instance. It is further submitted that these documents are from the year 2022-2023, and the cause of action of the suit arose as early as 2012 itself and hence, these documents are not relevant for the purpose of the suit.
4. Even though the documents are from the year 2022-2023, had the defendant tried to establish by way of confronting PW.1 about his conduct of operating the plant without getting due consent from the concerned department, the plaintiff would be obligated to protect his conduct. So only on that limited aspect, it would it have necessitated the plaintiff to come with these applications to produce these documents.
5. It appears in the judges summons that the documents listed are just photocopies and are not original. However, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he undertakes to produce the originals before the Court, as the originals are very much available with him.
6. Whatever the objections now made by the respondent, can be the matter for appreciation of evidence and let the proceedings progressed by way receiving the documents and allowing them to mark as evidence by reopening the plaintiff's side evidence and to recall PW.1. It is needless to state that the defendant have got the right to cross examine PW.1 and to raise objection also at the time of marking these documents.
With these reasons and observations, these applications are allowed. 18-09-2025 jrs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
R.N.MANJULA J.
jrs AND CS NO. 481 OF 2012,A NO. 3469 OF 2025,A NO. 3470 OF 18-09-2025