R. Mangaiyarkarasi v. B. Venu Naicker

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 3794 of 2025, CRP NO. 3797 OF 2025 & CRP NO. 3800 OF 2025 AND CMP NO. 20188 OF 2025

1. R.Mangaiyarkarasi W/o. I.Ramadoss, Residing at Old No.25, New No.110/1, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082

2. R Chakkarapani S/o. I.Ramadoss, Residing at Old No.25, New No.110/1, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082

3. R Madhavan S/o. I.Ramadoss, Residing at Old No.25, New No.110/1, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082

4. R Anandakrishnan W/o. I.Ramadoss, Residing at Old No.25, New No.110/1, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082

5. R Sampathkumar Residing at Old No.25, New No.110/1, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082 ..Petitioner(s) in all C.R.P.s Vs

1. B. Venu Naicker S/o. Balakrishnan Naicker, No.111, Sengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District

2. V Mohana W/o. Venu Naicker, Residing at No.111, Sengadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District

3. V Yuvaraj S/o. I.Veerabathiran, Residing at No.25/2, New No.108, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082

4. Bhavani D/o.. I.Veerabathiran, Residing at No.25/2, New No.108, SRP Kovil Street, Peravallur(North), Chennai-600 082 (Respondents 3 to 4 remained exparte before trial court and hence no notices to be sent to them in this C.R.P.) ..Respondent(s) in all C.R.P.s PRAYER IN CRP No. 3794 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order made in I.A.No.10/2025 in O.S.No.217/2018 dated 30-07-2025 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur.

PRAYER IN CRP No. 3797 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order made in IA No.9 of 2025 in OS No. 217 of 2018 dated 30.07.2025 on the file of the I Addl. District and Session Judge at Tiruvallur.

PRAYER IN CRP No. 3800 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal orders made in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.217 of 2018 dated 30.07.2025 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur.

In all CRPs For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Premkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.P.Dillibabu For R1 And R2 R3 And R4 - No Appearance COMMON ORDER Challenging the common impugned order passed in I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025 in O.S.No.217 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed applications to reopen, to recall P.W.2 evidence and also to mark additional documents 1 to 15, which were received through R.T.I. after the execution of alleged sale proceedings, which was marked through D.W.1 as Ex.B10. On hearing both sides, all the applications were dismissed by the trial judge. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that they have filed applications to reopen, to recall P.W.2 evidence and to mark the documents, which were received through R.T.I. after the submission of alleged sale proceedings, which was marked through D.W.1 as Ex.B10. But, the court below failed to give such opportunity stating that sufficient opportunity was already given to them and when the case was reserved for judgment, they came forward with applications in order to drag on the proceedings. After the production of Ex.B10, the necessity arose for the plaintiffs to get information through R.T.I. with regard to stamp paper found in Ex.B10 and also obtained information through R.T.I. So, to prove fabrication of records, they wanted to mark the information obtained through R.T.I. by recalling P.W.2 evidence. But, the trial court failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the applications. Aggrieved over that, they have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that at the earlier occasion, in the year 2023, they have taken steps to get information through R.T.I., which was totally different from the information now relied on by them. Therefore, the contradictory information received through R.T.I. cannot be taken into consideration, since the case is pending from the year of

2018 onwards. The information received by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs through R.T.I. is no way relating to the issue involved in the suit. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the suit and prayed to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering both side submissions, now the case is reserved for judgment, at this stage, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed applications to reopen, to recall evidence of P.W.2 and to produce additional documents. They have got information through R.T.I. in respect of stamp paper found in Ex.B10, which was marked through D.W.1. The date of issuance of the stamp paper totally differs as per the information furnished by the registering authority through R.T.I. So, it is the necessary document for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs to prove their defence, since they are disputing the power deed as well as the alleged Ex.B10. Therefore, the opportunity is to be given to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs to prove their defence. The reason for reopen arose after the production of the said document. So, there is no intention to drag on the proceedings as wrongly observed by the trial judge. Therefore, the findings of the trial judge held in I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025 in O.S.No. 217 of 2018 is set aside. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

Liberty is granted to the respondents/defendants to raise all those defence before the trial court. On hearing both sides, the trial judge is directed to complete the trial and dispose the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

23-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order RPP To The I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

RPP AND CMP NO. 20188 OF 2025 23-03-2026