Visalakshmi(Died) v. R.Krishnakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.R.P.No.4235 of 2019 and C.M.P. No. 27634 of 2019 Visalakshmi(died)

1. Renukadevi, W/o. Palanisamy 2 Chandrsekar, S/o. Arunachala Gounder 3 Sivakumar, S/o Arunachala Gounder Muthukumarasamy (died) 4 Rathinasamy S/o. Muthukumarasamy 5 Ramamoorthy S/o Muthukumarasamy 6 Sarojini W/o. Kanagaraj ... Petitioners

Versus

1/5

R.Krishnakumar S/o B.P.Ramasamy ... Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.594 of 2019 in O.S.No. 356 of 2018 on the file of SubCourt, Palladam. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja

O R D E R

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.594 of 2019 on the file of learned Sub-Court, Palladam, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Originally, a suit in O.S.No.356 of 2018 filed by the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs for the relief of partition against seven defendants. The defendants have contested the suit, issues were framed, evidence was recorded on both sides and the evidence was also closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments, at that time, the 2nd defendant filed an 2/5

application in I.A.No. 594 of 2019 under Sec.151 of C.P.C. praying to reopen the case in order to mark additional documents, which are said to be very essential to prove his defence. The said application was strongly opposed by the plaintiffs stating that only to drag on the proceedings, he come forward with the said application after closure of evidence, however, the said application does not disclose particulars of documents, which are to be marked on his side. On hearing submissions of both sides, the trial court allowed the application holding that already the documents, which are said to be marked by the 2nd defendant were already marked as certified copies under Ex.B1 and B2. Now, he want to mark the same documents, which are attested copies of originals and if those documents are marked, no hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for Revision Petitioners argued that to fill up the lacuna, the 2nd defendant filed the said application.

4. On seeing the facts, already certified copies of those documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2. To that effect, witnesses were cross-examined and now, the attested copies of originals said to be marked on the side of 2nd 3/5

defendant, since those documents were hypothecated with the bank. As already those documents were marked as Ex.B1 and B2, no hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs raised objections stating that subject to proof and relevancy, the documents to be marked and validity of the document also to be ascertained so as to decide the issue involved in the suit.

5. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the findings of the learned trial court in I.A.No.594 of 2019 is confirmed. However, since the suit is pending from the year of 2018, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 28.11.2022 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp To Sub-Judge, Palladam.

4/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 28.11.2022 5/5