The right to present evidence and documents in a fair trial is fundamental, and denying this right based solely on procedural delays can undermine justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 2125 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 12389 OF 2025, CRP NO. 2126 OF 2025

1. P. Radhakrishnan S/o. Balaiah Nadar, D.No.19A2, Kamarajar Nagar, M.G.R Nagar, Madukkarai Road, Sundarapuram, SIDCO ( Post), Coimbatore.

Petitioner in both CRPs Vs

1. S.P. Viswanathan S/o. C.S. Palanisamy, D.No.92B, Kamarajar Nagar, SIDCO (Post), Coimbatore.

Respondent in both CRPs P RAYER in C RP No. 2125 of 2025 This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2024 passed in IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.1461 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore and allow the petition and pass further or such other order that may deem at fit and proper and circumstances and render justice.

P RAYER in C RP No. 2126 of 2025:

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2024 passed in IA No.5 of 2024 in OS No.1461 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore and allow the petition and pass further or such other order that may deem at fit and proper and circumstances and render justice.

In both CRPs:

For Petitioner: Mr.A. Swaminathan For Respondent: M/S.P.R.Ramesh Babu

COMMON ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.The defendant, whose application to receive additional documents was dismissed, is the revision petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Swaminathan, would bring to my notice the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, who is vehemently contending that the promissory notes were given only as a security for chit transactions and it is only the documents relating to the chit transactions that are sought to be filed.

4. It is also his specific case as the revision petitioner that these documents were put to PW.1 during the cross-examination; PW.1 has not admitted the said documents. Therefore, it became necessary for the revision petitioner to file the documents as documents on his side.

5.The said application was objected to by the respondent/plaintiff on the grounds that the petitioner has not set out any reasons for the non production of the said documents along with the written statement and the application does not contain any valid reasons for the production of the additional documents at the belated stage of evidence of the defendants.

6. The trial court has also accepted the contentions put forth by the respondent/plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss the application, holding that the defendant was only trying to fill up the lacuna in the evidence.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels on either side. I have also gone through the impugned order.

8.The suit is for recovery of money instituted by the respondent/plaintiff based on the promissory notes said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. It is stated in the written statement that the promissory notes were not for consideration but only for security in respect of the chit transactions about which specific plea has been taken in the written statement in Paragraph No. 7. The defence raised by the revision petitioner in the suit is that the promissory note is without consideration and the suit claim is therefore not genuine, and the suit was liable to be dismissed on that score.

9. No doubt PW.1 has been examined in chief and cross, and after taking adjournments, an attempt was made to reopen and recall the evidence of PW.1, and elaborate cross-examination was carried out. However, it is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that when these chit tr