P.Manickam v. S.Natesan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-07-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3513 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 15357 OF 2026
1. P.Manickam
2. M.Raja
3. M.Mani Petitioner(s) Vs S.Natesan Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21-04-2026 in IA.No.7 of 2026 in OS.No.179 of 2015 on the file of the II Addl.Dist.Munsif Court, Salem and consequently allow the IA.No.7 of 2026 in OS.No.179 of 2015 as prayed for. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.I.Inian for Mr.T.Saikrishnan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 21.04.2026 passed in I.A. No.7 of 2026 in O.S. No.179 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. 2.Under the aforesaid order, an application filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants seeking to summon the Tahsildar for production of certain
documents like, patta records and other revenue documents, has been dismissed by the Trial Court on the following grounds:
a)The application was filed by the petitioners only during trial at a belated stage and has been filed only to delay the proceedings in the suit; b)The petitioners could have obtained the documents from the revenue department since the documents sought for by the petitioners are all public records.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there became a necessity for the petitioners to summon the Tahsildar for production of the requisite documents since the respondent/plaintiff has produced FMB sketch pertaining to the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this court to the decisions rendered by this Court on 10.04.2023 in CRP (MD) No.2302 of 2022 and 03.12.2021 in CRP. PD. No.1101 of 2019.
4.Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, this Court had held that summoning of the official concerned is permissible. However, as seen from those decisions, the question of inordinate delay was not the subject matter of consideration.
5.In the case on hand, the petitioners have filed an application only at the fag end of the trial. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction by the respondent/plaintiff. Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff had also filed documents, which include the FMB sketch. When the FMB sketch was filed by the respondent/plaintiff at the inception of plaint itself, the petitioners ought to have obtained the relevant documents from the revenue department if they are available and if not, they ought to have filed the application seeking for filing additional documents or for summoning the Tahsildar at the earliest point of time. Having failed to do so, the question of entertaining the application filed by the petitioners at this belated stage does not arise. If the same is entertained, the disposal of the suit will get delayed.
6.Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2015, whereas the application was filed by the petitioners only in the year 2026 at the fag end of the trial. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing the application. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. No costs.
02-07-2026 vga To 1.The II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.
vga AND CMP NO. 15357 OF 2026 02-07-2026