CRP(PD)Nos.2153 to 2155 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2153 to 2155 of 2019

and C.M.P.Nos.13871, 13874, 13876 & 13894 of 2019

1.Kaliyaperumal

2.Rajendran

3.Rajadurai

... Petitioners in

all the three CRPs.

Vs.

1.Kolanjinathan

2.Dakshinamurthy

3.Baskaran

... Respondents in

all the three CRPs.

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 21.02.2019 made in

I.A.Nos.402, 401 & 403 of 2018 in O.S.No.308 of 2015 on the file of the Additional

District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

In all the three CRPs.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pradeep

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)Nos.2153 to 2155 of 2019

C O M M O N O R D E R

These revisions arise against an order passed by the learned Additional District

Munsif at Cuddalore in dismissing the applications filed in I.A.Nos.401 to 403 of

2018 in O.S.No.308 of 2015.

2. The defendants 1, 2 & 5 are the revision petitioners. They had filed

applications in I.A.No.401 of 2018 to re-open the case to recall D.W.1, the 1^st

defendant, I.A.No.402 of 2018 to mark the document and I.A.No.403 of 2018 to

receive the document. The document that sought to be marked was the judgment and

decree in O.S.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-Judicial

Magistrate's Court, Valangaiman, dated 31.08.2018. The grounds on which the

applications were dismissed, were on two fold:

(i) The averment was not stated in the written statement and

(ii) It amounts to filling up the lacunae in the case.

3. In so far as the first ground is concerned, the demand by the trial Court is

impossible, because the written statement was filed in September 2016, whereas the

decree in O.S.No.1 of 2018 came to be passed in the year 2018. The 1^st defendant

could not have pleaded about the decree and judgment in the suit, as on the date on

which he filed written statement, the said judgment and decree was not in existence.

On the second ground, it amounts to filling up the lacunae, the matter is still pending

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)Nos.2153 to 2155 of 2019

trial. The Code of Civil Procedure is not a legislation meant to punish litigants. The

trial Court is the First Court of law and fact and whatever evidence is available to a

litigant should be brought forth before that Court. By giving an opportunity to the

petitioners, no prejudice would have been caused to either party, because the

document that relied upon is the judgment and decree of the regularly constituted

Court. The question of relevancy for filing the document etc., always falls within the

scope of marshalling of evidence. Therefore, I do not need to punish the petitioners

for producing the document, which has come into existence after presentation of the

plaint and after filing written statement, in fact it might have a vital impact, as pleaded

by the defendants, on the outcome of the suit.

4. In fine,

(i) The orders dated 21.02.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.401 to 403 of 2018 in

O.S.No.308 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore,

are set aside and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

(ii) The trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the revision petitioners

on 16.08.2023. On that day, the petitioners will examine the 1^st defendant/DW1, mark

the document and close his side. Since the permission is granted only to get the

judgment and decree in the suit, there need not be lengthy cross-examination for the

said purpose. If the learned counsel for the plaintiffs requests time to cross-examine,

the Court below can grant him an opportunity.

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)Nos.2153 to 2155 of 2019

(iii) In any event, the evidence of D.W.1 shall be completed on or befo