Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1293/2023allowed

Maruthaiappa Gounder (Died), 1. Nallasamy, v. P. Ayyavu (Died), 1. Ramakrishnanan,

2024-03-12Honourable Mr Justice G.Ilangovan12 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12/03/2024

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN C.R.P(MD)Nos.1293 to 1295 of 2023 and CMP(MD)Nos.6369 of 2023 (1)CRP(MD)No.1293 of 2023:- Maruthaiappa Gounder (died) 1.Nallasamy 2.Chellappan 3.Rajalakshmi 4.Sangeetha 5.Subramani 6.Maruthamuthu 7.Thangavel 8.Kaliammal 9.Chellammal, w/o.Paravel 10.Chellammal, w/o.Ramasamy Gounder 11.Saraswathi : Petitioners/Petitioners 2 to 5 & 7 to 13/ Plaintiffs 2 to 5 & 7 to 13 Vs.

P.Ayyavu (died) 1.Ramakrishnan Rajammal (died) 2.V.Vasu 3.A.Sumathi 4.A.Samikkannu P.Thilagarsamy Nadar (died) 5.R.Backiam 6.B.Kundumalai 7.V.Sankar 8.The District Collector, Velu Natchiyar Buildings, Dindigul District Collector Office, Dindigul.

1/12

9.The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk Office, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District.

10.A.Pannerselvam 11.A.Kamaraj 12.A.Naatraj @ Naatrayan 13.A.Jeyaram 14.Selvi 15.Elanchiyam P.Vasu (died) 16.P.Vasuki 17.P.Panchavarnam, W/o.Late P.Vasu 18.Sermailatha 19.Nageswari 20.Senthilkumar 21.Karthiyayini 22.T.Murugesan 23.Panchavarnam, W/o. Gnanam 24.T.Nagendiran : Respondents 1 to 24/ Respondents 1 to 24/ Defendants 25.Karthika : 25th Respondent/ 6th Petitioner/ 6th Plaintiff (Since respondents 1 to 17, 19, 22 and 24 were remained ex-parte are given up) PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 21/04/2023 made in IA No.176 of 2023 in OS No.101 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Sridharan For R1 to R9, R11 to R17, R19, R22 and R24 : Given up R10 and R16 : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan 2/12

(2)CRP(MD)No.1294 of 2023:- Maruthaiappa Gounder (died) 1.Nallasamy 2.Chellappan 3.Rajalakshmi 4.Sangeetha 5.Subramani 6.Maruthamuthu 7.Thangavel 8.Kaliammal 9.Chellammal, w/o.Paravel 10.Chellammal, w/o.Ramasamy Gounder 11.Saraswathi : Petitioners/Petitioners 2 to 5 & 7 to 13/ Plaintiffs 2 to 5 & 7 to 13 Vs.

9.The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk Office, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District.

10.A.Pannerselvam 11.A.Kamaraj 12.A.Naatraj @ Naatrayan 13.A.Jeyaram 14.Selvi 15.Elanchiyam P.Vasu (died) 3/12

16.P.Vasuki 17.P.Panchavarnam, W/o.Late P.Vasu 18.Sermailatha 19.Nageswari 20.Senthilkumar 21.Karthiyayini 22.T.Murugesan 23.Panchavarnam, W/o.Gnanam 24.T.Nagendiran : Respondents 1 to 24/ Respondents 1 to 24/ Defendants 25.Karthika : 25th Respondent/ 6th Petitioner/ 6th Plaintiff (Since respondents 1 to 17, 19, 22 and 24 were remained ex-parte are given up) PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 21/04/2023 made in IA No.177 of 2023 in OS No.101 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan For R1 to R9, R11 to R17, R19, R22 and R24 : Given up R10 and R16 : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan (3)CRP(MD)No.1295 of 2023:- Maruthaiappa Gounder (died) 1.Nallasamy 2.Chellappan 3.Rajalakshmi 4.Sangeetha 5.Subramani 6.Maruthamuthu 7.Thangavel 8.Kaliammal 9.Chellammal, w/o.Paravel 4/12

10.Chellammal, w/o.Ramasamy Gounder 11.Saraswathi : Petitioners/Petitioners 2 to 5 & 7 to 13/ Plaintiffs 2 to 5 & 7 to 13 Vs.

9.The Tahsildar, Oddanchathiram Taluk Office, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District.

6th Petitioner/ 6th Plaintiff (Since respondents 1 to 17, 19, 22 and 24 were remained ex-parte are given up) PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 21/04/2023 made in IA No.178 of 2023 in OS No.101 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchathiram.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan For R1 to R9, R11 to R17, R19, R22 and R24 : Given up R10 and R16 : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal orders, dated 21/04/2023 passed in IA Nos.176 to 178 of 2023 in OS No.101 of 2009 by the District Munsif, Oddanchatiram. 2.The facts in brief:- The suit in OS No.101 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction, etc. The defendants entered appearance, filed their written statement and trial commenced. During the trial process, petitions in IA Nos. 6/12

176 to 178 of 2023 were taken out by the petitioners herein, to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs, to recall PW1 and to mark certain documents. All the petitions came to be dismissed by the trial court.

3.Against which, these civil revision petitions are preferred.

4.The present petitions were filed by the petitioners with the following averments:- On the side of the plaintiffs, 21 documents were marked. PW1 was examined. Later, 8 documents marked and cross examination was also over. With the examination of PW2 and PW3. Now the case posted for the defendants side evidence. On the side of the defendants, DW1 was examined. During the course of the cross examination, he denied the order passed in WP(MD)No.14881 of 2013 and the subsequent order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on 09/04/2014. He also further denied that the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has observed that the sale by the Kuppanna Gounder, on 22/10/2012 is valid. For the purpose of producing those documents, It is required to be re-opened.

7/12

5.That was resisted by the respondents.

6.After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the petitions stating that there is a long delay in producing the documents. Apart from that, it is also stated that the documents now sought to be produced are not relevant documents.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The documents now sought to be produced by the petitioners are the public documents. One in the form of the order passed in WP(MD)No.14881 of 2013, dated 04/03/2014. Similarly, the order passed by the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, with reference to the document and sale deed, dated 22/10/1952. The relevancy of those documents ought not to have been gone into by the trial court, while entertaining the petition to recall or reopen the evidence. The relevancy can be found only at the time of trial.

9.When the public documents are available making reference to the facts and issue, opportunity might have been given to the petitioners to produce those documents. Simply because the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs 8/12

is closed, rejecting the request of the petitioners may not be proper. The parties must be given fullest opportunity to put forth their contentions and produce all the documents, which are available with them for recording binding adjudication.

More-over, the respondents have not made any strong objection for allowing these petitions.

10.Since the documents sought to be produced are only public documents, as mentioned above, the orders passed by the trial court requires to be set aside. 11.Accordingly, all the civil revision petitions are allowed. The fair and decreetal orders, dated 21/04/2023 passed in IA Nos.176 to 178 of 2023 in OS No.101 of 2009 by the District Munsif, Oddanchatiram are hereby set aside and all the Ias stand allowed. No costs. Consequentially, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

12/03/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er 9/12

To, 1.The District Munsif, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District.

2.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

10/12

G.ILANGOVAN, J er C.R.P(MD)Nos.1293 to 1295 of 2023 12/03/2024 11/12

12/12