Ragoth v. Panneerselvam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.26487 of 2025 1.

Ragoth 2.

R.Prasanth ... Petitioners Vs.

Panneerselvam ... Respondent PRAYER:

Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 08.08.2025 made in I.A.No.364 of 2024 in O.S.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur and allow the CRP. For Petitioners : Ms.R.Divyapreathika for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing the application filed by the respondent 1/4

herein/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure to receive a document, dated 22.03.2017.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaration regarding the suit 'B' scheduled property and for a consequential injunction. The petitioners herein/defendants have also filed written statement raising serious objections opposing the averments made in the plaint.

3. Now, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.364 of 2024 seeking to produce a document dated 22.03.2017 styled as an agreement. The said application was opposed by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that the document produced by the respondent was a forged one and it had no relevancy to the subject matter of the suit.

4. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application, preserving the right of the petitioners to raise an objection when the document is tendered in evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

2/4

5. By the impugned order, the trial Court only received the document and it has not been marked. If the document is tendered in evidence for the purpose of marking, the petitioners are entitled to question the admissibility of the same and raise their objections. As far as the plea of forgery and relevancy of document are concerned, those questions can be decided at the time of final disposal. As far as the admissibility of document is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to raise their objections when the document is tendered in evidence for the purpose of marking.

6. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.11.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ms To The I Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur.

3/4

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

ms and C.M.P.No.26487 of 2025 03.11.2025 4/4