R.Arulsingamani v. S.Vaikuntarajan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19/06/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI CRP (MD). Nos.1676 and 1677 of 2021

1. R.Arulsingamani, A.Moni (Died), 2.A.Andrew Robi,

3. Mary Roselin Sujatha,,

4. Elsy Syla Evangelin,, ... Petitioners Vs

1. S.Vaikuntarajan

2. V.V.Minerals,Keeraikaranthattu Through its Managing Partner, S.Vaikuntaraj,.

3. Pauldurai@perumal,

4. M.Sivasubramanian,

5. V.R.Sivasankaran,

6. S.Parvathi,

7. Thangalakshmi Sivasubramanian,

8. S.Sundaresan

9. S.P.Thangaraj 1/6

10. A.S.V.Subbiah Nadar

11. S.Jegatheesan

12. S.Sukumar

13. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Industries Department, Fort George,Chennai-9.

14. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep by the District Collector, Tirunelveli, Kokkirakulam,Tirunelveli-9..

15. The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-9.

16. The Registrar of Firms,, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli,.

17. Chithraboopathy, ... Respondents PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the common order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge,Tirunelveli dated 20-09-2021 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2021 in O.S.No.39 of 1993.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar For Respondents : Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram Senior counsel for R1 Mr.B.Saravanan for R13 to R15 Additional Government Pleader Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for R11 2/6

COMMON ORDER This Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 20-09-2021 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2021 in O.S.No. 39 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge,Tirunelveli.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs 1 to 5 in OS No.39/1993 and the 6th defendant filed IA Nos.8 and 9/2021 to recall and receive the documents, which were obtained under the Right to Information Act. The said petitions were allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that during the pendency of Civil Revision Petitions, the disputed documents have been marked through D.W.1 by comparing the original, which are available with the Government Department and the petitioners have also cross-examined D.W.1 with regard to the particular documents. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal. 3/6

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the trial Court to decide the veracity of the documents in the manner known to law.

5. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the said submissions and since the disputed documents have already been marked through D.W.1 by comparing the originals, which are available with the Government officials and the petitioners have also cross-examined DW1 regarding the particular documents, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to decide the veracity and genuineness of the documents at the time of trial in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

19.06.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR 4/6

TO 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,Tirunelveli 2.The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort George,Chennai-9.

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Kokkirakulam,Tirunelveli-9..

4.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining,, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli-9.

5. The Registrar of Firms,, Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli,.

6.VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J RR

ORDER

IN CRP(MD) Nos.1676 and 1677 of 2021 Date : 19/06/2025 6/6