The court has the discretion to allow the production of documents after the completion of evidence, but such discretion should be exercised judiciously and only for compelling reasons.

C.R.P.Nos.3051, 2907 & 2876 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.12.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.Nos.3051, 2907 & 2876 of 2023 &

C.M.P.NoS.18889, 17993 & 17820 of 2023

B.Sheela Rath

... Petitioners in all C.R.Ps.

Vs.

Sanjay Kumar Rath

... Respondents in all C.R.Ps.

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India seeking to set aside the common fair and final order

dated 16.12.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2022 in O.S.No.215 of 2013

on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District at

Chengalpattu.

For Petitioner in all C.R.Ps. : Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 passed in

I.A.Nos.2, 3 & 4 of 2022 in O.S.No.215 of 2013, these civil revision

petitions have been filed by the defendant.

2. Before the trial court, the respondent who is the plaintiff filed a suit

1/5

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

C.R.P.Nos.3051, 2907 & 2876 of 2023

for declaration of title. Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed

I.A.No.2 of 2022 praying to issue summons to the forensic authority, to

appear before the court and give evidence relating to the report dated

04.06.2019 sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, I.A.No.3 of

2022 praying to reopen petitioner's case for examination of forensic

authorities relating to the report dated 04.06.2019 as petitioner's witness and

I.A.No.4 of 2022 praying to receive the certified copy of the report of the

forensic laboratory dated 04.06.2019 together with other enclosures.

3. All the aforesaid applications have been filed by the

respondent/plaintiff after completion of the evidence of the defendant. The

reasons assigned by him is that to prove the binami transaction, the plaintiff

wants to mark the report of the forensic expert. The said application was

strongly objected by the petitioner/defendant stating that after completion of

the evidence to fill up the lacuna, those documents were sought to be

produced. Considering both the submissions, the trial court allowed those

applications stating that it is the suit for declaration of title filed by the

plaintiff claiming himself as the absolute owner of the property and to prove

the same, he wants to file relevant forensic report. Aggrieved that, the

defendant preferred the present revision.

2/5

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

C.R.P.Nos.3051, 2907 & 2876 of 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if at all the plaintiff

want to prove his claim, he has to prove the same before completion of trial,

but not after completion of evidence. But the trial court erroneously allowed

those applications.

5. Admittedly the husband filed the suit for declaration of title

claiming absolute owner of the property against his wife stating that the

property stands in the name of his wife as binami. The plaintiff side evidence

was closed. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the trial court allowed

those applications, in order to ascertain whether the document produced from

proper custody and if it is original, the same could be marked. Admittedly,

the suit is of the year 2013 and till 2022, the plaintiff has not taken any steps

to mark the relevant document.

6. This Court do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial

court. However, the respondent/plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- as costs to the petitioner/defendant.

7. In view of the above direction, these civil revision petitions are

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connections miscellaneous petitions are

3/5

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

C.R.P.Nos.3051, 2907 & 2876 of 2023

closed.

18.12.2023

nl

Index : Yes/No

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citations : Yes/No

To

1.The Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District