Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S.Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Jeyaraman – Respondent
CRP(MD) 3350 2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - ORDER 18 RULE 17 - ORDER 7 RULE 14 - RECALL OF WITNESS - RECEIVING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT - DISMISSAL OF PETITION - VALIDITY
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, and cancellation of patta. After the closure of the plaintiffs' and defendants' evidence, the plaintiffs filed three applications: to recall P.W.1, to recall D.W.2, and to receive the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 as an additional document. The trial court dismissed the petitions, holding that the plaintiffs were attempting to protract the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitions. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been lethargic in conducting the case and had filed petitions in a casual manner to drag on the proceedings. The court also noted that the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 was already part of the case bundle and could not be marked as an exhibit.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitions to recall P.W.1 and D.W.2 and to receive the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 as an additional document.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitions because the plaintiffs had been attempting to protract the proceedings and the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 was already part of the case bundle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petitions.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
1.T.S.Rajendran
2.T.S.Nagaraj
V.Amirthavalli (died)
3.Velusamy
4.Gomathi
5.Balamurugan
: Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiff 1, 2 and 4 to 6
Vs.
1.Jeyaraman
2.Dhanalakshmi
3.Mohammed Asiq
4.Mohammed Askar
5.Sheik Kadhar
6.Nishar Ahammed
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
7.The Tahsildar,
Kodaikanal Town,
Dindigul District.
8.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kodaikanal Town,
Dindigul District.
9.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.
10.The District Collector,
Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.
11.The Sub Registrar,
Kodaikanal Town,
Dindigul District.
: Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Common Prayer : These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227
of Constitution of India, to call for the records relating with the fair and
decreetal order, dated 23.06.2023 made in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in
O.S.No.160 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Palani and set
aside the same.
For Petitioners
: Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Additional Government Pleader,
for R7 to R11.
: Mr.M.P.Senthil, for R3, R5 and R6.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revisions are directed against the orders passed in
I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2023 in O.S.No.161 of 2014, dated 23.06.2023 on the
file of the Principal Sub Court, Palani, dismissing the petitions filed under
Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., to recall D.W.2 for marking additional
documents and under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., to receive the additional
document.
2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the above suit to
declare that the suit properties are belonging to them and for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 6 and their men from in any
manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property, mandatory injunction for cancellation of patta issued in
favour of the defendants 1 to 6 and for granting of patta in favour of the
plaintiffs and to declare that the sale deeds as null and void.
3. It is evident from the records that after closure of the plaintiffs
side evidence and defendants 3 to 6 side evidence and when the case was
3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
pending for the defendants 7 to 10 side evidence, the plaintiffs have filed
three applications in I.A.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2023, one to recall P.W.1, second
application to recall D.W.2 and third application to receive the written
statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 as additional document.
4. The learned trial Judge has passed a detailed order in I.A.No.1 of
2023 and by observing that the above petition came to be filed only to
drag on the proceedings, dismissed the said petition. But, with respect to
the second application in I.A.No.2 of 2023, the learned trial Judge has
passed an order stating that since the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 was
dismissed, this application is also dismissed. But, with respect to the other
application in I.A.No.3 of 2023, the learned trial Judge by holding that
since the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2023 to reopen the case is dismissed as
not maintainable, there is no necessity to recall P.W.1 for marking
additional document, dismissed the said application.
5. The main contention of the revision petitioners is that the
defendants 7 to 10 have taken a stand that the patta bearing No.12\73
issued in the name of one T.N.Subbaiah was already cancelled and the
4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3350 and 3351 of 2023
same was subsequently issued in the name of defendants 1 and 2; that the
plaintiffs have then issued a notice to the defendants 7 to 10 to produce the
said
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
