Duraimani v. Ambika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI Duraimani ...

Petitioner in both CRPs.

-vsAmbika ...

Respondent in both CRPs.

PRAYER: C.R.P.No.542 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 25.09.2024, passed by Additional Sub-Court No.1 Villupuram, in I.A.No.374 of 2023 in O.S.No.844 of 2019. PRAYER: C.R.P.No.543 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 25.09.2024, passed by Additional Sub-Court No.1 Villupuram, in I.A.No.375 of 2023 in O.S.No.844 of 2019. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.K.Hemanthan

ORDER

Revision Petitioner is the defendant in the suit for recovery of money.

2. These revision petitions are filed, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.374 and 375 of 2023 in O.S.No.844 of 2019 by Additional Sub-Court No.1, Villupuram.

3. Respondent/plaintiff has taken out the above applications for reopening of plaintiff's side evidence and also to recall the witness in order to file additional documents to establish that the signature of the petitionerdefendant is only in English. However, mischievously, in the written statement, the petitioner - defendant, according to the respondent - plaintiff, has chosen to sign his name in Tamil. The said applications, though were resisted by the revision petitioner, came to be allowed on payment of costs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the applications have been filed after the trial was completed and case was also argued by the counsel on both sides and judgment was reserved. Referring to the affidavits filed in support of the applications, he would state that there is absolutely no reason assigned by the respondent - plaintiff for not filing the applications earlier and he confronted the witness with regard to the documents that are now sought to be produced on the side of respondent - plaintiff.

5. However, it has been specifically controverted by the respondent- plaintiff that, before the trial Court, the applications having been

allowed on payment of costs, the costs were not only tendered by the respondent - plaintiff, but also received by the counsel for the petitioner and, subsequently, documents had also been marked on 21.10.2024.

6. In view of the above developments, I do not see any reason to set aside the order passed by the trial Court at this length of time. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.3116 and 3122 of 2025 are closed.

01.08.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit To:

I Additional Sub-Judge, Villupuram.

P.B.BALAJI, J.

dixit 01.08.2025