Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
D.Dhanalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
V.Maheswari – Respondent
C.R.P.No.203 of 2023 & CRP SR No.17481 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.1667 of 2023
Decided on : 06-04-2023
Revision Petition - Civil Procedure - Order VII, Rule 14(3) of CPC, Section 122 of CPC, Rules 30, 32, 34, and 35 of Civil Rules of Practice - The court allowed the petition to adduce additional evidence and to mark additional documents under Order VII, Rule 14 of CPC without affording the opportunity to raise objections, which was found unacceptable and unreasonable. The Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was justified in setting aside the order and allowing the applications for additional evidence and documents.
Fact of the Case:
The Defendants, as Revision Petitioners, sought to set aside the ex parte order and eschew additional evidence in a suit for recovery of money filed by the landlady. The Defendants claimed to have vacated the premises and carried out repairs with the landlady's permission, but the landlady filed the suit for recovery of money. During the trial, the Plaintiff sought to adduce additional evidence and mark additional documents, which was allowed without affording the Defendants an opportunity to raise objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order allowing the additional evidence and documents without affording the opportunity to raise objections was unacceptable and unreasonable, and the Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was justified in setting aside the order and allowing the applications for additional evidence and documents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court's allowance of additional evidence and documents without affording the opportunity to raise objections was acceptable and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of fairness, equity, and good conscience govern the Civil Court from granting or refusing reliefs, and the order allowing the additional evidence and documents without affording the opportunity to raise objections was found to be unacceptable and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition in SR Stage were allowed, setting aside the order and allowing the applications for additional evidence and documents. The learned XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, was requested to afford an opportunity to the Defendants to file a counter and pass appropriate orders as per law.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.8377 of 2021 on 23.11.2022 by the learned XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as in charge Judge of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the Petition to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022.
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.8377 of 2021 on 23.11.2022 by the learned XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as in charge Judge of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the Petition to eschew the additional evidence.
In view of the fact that the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same, both the cases are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. The Civil Revision Petition No.203 of 2023 had been filed seeking to set aside the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.8377 of 2021 on 23.11.2022 by the learned XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as in charge Judge of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the Petition to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022.
3. The Civil Revision Petition in CRP SR No.17481 of 2023 had been filed seeking to set aside the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.8377 of 2021 on 23.11.2022 by the learned XXI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as in charge Judge of XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the Petition to eschew the additional evidence.
4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Defendants submitted that the landlady had filed the suit in O.S.No.8377 of 2021 on the file of the learned XX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Tenants are the Defendants in the suit. The Revision Petitioners/Defendants had taken out the property on lease and was running a School. It is his contention that during COVID-19 Lockdown, the Schools were not allowed to function till January, 2022. Primary sections of all the Schools remained closed. It is his contention that the premises taken out on lease require maintenance. Therefore, Revision Petitioners/Defendants with their own funds had carried out repairs with the permission of the landlady and it was agreed that the tenants will adjust the the maintenance expenses in the rent. The tenant had informed the landlady's Power of Attorney Agent Mr.Janakiraman in June 2021 about their intention to close the School and vacate the premises. On 02.07.2021, the Power of Attorney Agent of the landlady Mr.Janakiraman received the key of the premises. He made endorsement on the duplicate of the letter of the tenant which stated that they had vacated the premises and handed over the keys and that the building is in good condition. Mr.Janakiraman agreed to this and strongly recommended for repayment of advance in October-November 2021. To avoid refund of the advance and harass the tenants, the landlady filed the suit for recovery of money. On receipt of summons, the tenants as Defendants in the suit entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the contention in the plaint. Issues were framed. The suit was posted for trial. On 12.09.2022 the trial commenced before the learned XX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. The post of the Presiding Judge of XX Assistant Court was vacant. Therefore, the learned XXI Assistant Judge was holding the Full Additional Charge of the post of the learned XX Assistant Judge. By around 11.30 a.m. the junior Counsel of the learned Counsel for the Defendants used to be present in Court and the learned Counsel for the Defendants will be appearing in the other Courts. On 12.09.2022 the Plaintiff was examined as P.W-1 in the presence of
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked to admit additional evidence in interlocutory proceedings if the evidence is relevant to the controversy, assists in the ends of justice, and does....
Amendment in plaint can be allowed at any stage of suit even before pronouncement of Judgment – Question of requirement of filing written statement cannot be assessed by court at this stage.
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
The discretion of the trial court to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is essential to ensure a fair trial, particularly when the opposing party has not been given a reasonable ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
