C. Saravanan v. G.D. Sivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 24.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P (NPD) No.4238 of 2022 C.Saravanan ... Petitioner ..Vs.
G.D.Sivakumar ... Respondent Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.11.2022, made in I.A No.1 of 2022 in A.S No.109 of 2021, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajmakesh For Respondent : Mr.S.Veeraraghavan
O R D E R
Though the matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to decide the Civil Revision Petition afresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present Civil Revision Petition is arising out of the bare injunction suit, wherein he has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC for 1/5
the reception of additional documents, namely partition deed dated 31.05.1932, death certificates of the Revision Petitioner's father and grand father and the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in I.A No.3324 pf 1984 in O.S No.8697 of 1983, similarly, Advocate Commissioner's report dated 24.09.1997 filed in the said suit. 2.The application filed for the reception of additional documents in A.S. No.109 of 2021 was dismissed by the Appellate Court/VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The dismissal has been challenged before this Court through the present revision petition. However, this Court, by an order dated 09.03.2023 allowed the revision and directed the Appellate Court to receive the documents on record. The order of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3949 of 2025. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not granted any reasons for the reception of additional documents, set aside the said order, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.
3. When the matter is posted in the list, the learned counsel 2/5
for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already filed a comprehensive suit for declaration and recovery of possession and the documents sought to be filed as additional documents in bare injunction suit was already relied upon by him in the comprehensive suit. Hence, his contention is that he will canvas his case in a comprehensive suit for declaration requiring possession and he will also file an affidavit to argue his main injunction suit without the additional documents sought to be filed. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that no order is required in the present Civil Revision Petition, as the petitioner intends to withdraw the same and has made an endorsement to that effect. He further submits that the interim order passed by the Appellate Court, while rejecting the application, shall not be binding in the comprehensive suit.
4. It is well settled that the suit is only filed for bare injunction. Therefore, mere dismissal of the application for the reception of additional documents that will not have any impact for bare injunction suit.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and endorsement 3/5
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 24.07.2025 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No uma To The VI Additional City Civil Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J uma 4/5
C.R.P (NPD) No.4238 of 2022 24.07.2025 5/5