Chandrasekar v. Kannan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.19364 of 2025 1.Chandrasekar 2.Santhanlakshmi 3.Prithvi ... Petitioners -vs.- 1.Kannan 2.Mouria Krishna
...Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to impugned fair and ex-order made in I.A.No.98 of 2023 in O.S.No.457 of 2019, dated 01.03.2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul and set aside the same. For Petitioners :Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj For R1 :Mr.M.Antony Raja Durai for Mr.S.Rajadurai For R2 :Mr.S.A.Iniyavan Abdullah *****
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, in I.A.No.98 of 2023 in O.S.No.457 of 2019, dated 01.03.2025.
2.Heard Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Antony Raja Durai, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.A.Iniyavan Abdullah, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 3.The first respondent, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.457 of 2019 against the petitioners and the second respondent before the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul, seeking for a relief of declaration to declare that the removal of the plaintiff from the partnership,dated 01.04.2019 is null and void and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.98 of 2023 to pass an order for production of copy of the balance sheet, cash book, journal, books of accounts, bank book and other money transactions of Hi Tech Horticulture
Partnership Firm for the year 2021-2022. The learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order, dated 01.03.2025, had allowed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4.Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent has no right to seek any relief, as prayed in the interlocutory application, without being any prayer in the original suit. He also submitted that the first petitioner herein is the Founder and Managing Partner of the Partnership Firm and the 1st respondent is the stranger to the partnership firm. However, the Court below failed to consider the case of the petitioners in proper perspective and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and seeks interference of this Court.
5.Mr.M.Antony Raja Durai, learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the documents sought for by the first respondent are necessary for the disposal of the suit and that the Court below, after perusing the entire materials available on record and after hearing the submissions on either side,
has passed the impugned order, which is perfectly valid and does not warrant interference of this Court.
5.Mr.S.A.Iniyavan Abdullah, learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the order passed by the Court below is without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that filing an application for rendition of copy of the balance sheet, cash book, journal, books of accounts, bank book and other money transactions of Hi Tech Horticulture Partnership Firm for the year 2021-2022, is only to drag on the proceedings and that the order passed by the Court below needs interference of this Court. 6.This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7.In the application filed by the first respondent, the first respondent has only sought for rendition of copy of the balance sheet, cash book, journal, books of accounts, bank book and other money transactions of Hi Tech Horticulture Partnership Firm for the year 2021-2022, and that it will not cause
any injustice to the defendants. Further, mere rendition of documents, as sought by the first respondent, will not cause any irreparable loss to the defendants. From the perusal of the affidavit as well as the order passed in I.A.No.98 of 2023, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order, dated 01.03.2025.
8.In result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the suit is of the year 2019, this Court may direct the trial Court to expedite the trial.
10.Considering the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as the suit is of the year 2019, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
11.This Court placed its appreciation on the learned Court appointed
Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent, who has rendered his effective submission for arriving at the appropriate decision. The High Court Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in toto as remuneration to the learned Court appointed Legal Aid Counsel, who is appearing for the second respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
05.02.2026 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr To 1.The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.
2.The High Court Legal Services Committee, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
cmr 05.02.2026