C.R.P(PD)No.2339 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.R.P(PD).No.2339 of 2017

and

CMP.No.10981 of 2017

1.Chandra

2.Rajendran

3.Venkat @ Venkatesan

4.Kesavan

..Petitioners

Vs.

1.V.Venugopal @ V.Chandrasekaran

2.Gnanasoundari

3.Shenbagavalli

4.Lokeswari

5.Saratha

6.Datchayani

7.Thilagavathy

8.Dhanveer Hussain

9.Shabina Hussain

..Respondents

1/10

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2339 of 2017

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, against the judgment and decreetal order in I.A.No.1258 of 2016 in

O.S.No.149 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram dated

02.03.2017.

For Petitioners : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani

for Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondents

: No Appearance ( Names printed in

cause list)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice had been

directed to the respondents, who are defendants in O.S.No.149 of 2012.

Though notice to R1 to R9 issued through Court has been served on

31.07.2017, there is no appearance for the respondents. Their names have

also been printed in the cause list. This would not be a deterrent to pass any

orders in this Civil Revision Petition.

2.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.149 of 2012, who are the petitioners

had filed the suit on the basis of assignment pattas granted with respect to

Gramanatham lands to one Dhananjayan, whose legal representatives are

2/10

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2339 of 2017

the plaintiffs herein. The properties, for which such assignment pattas have

been granted is situtated in Survey No.58/2A, now Gramanatham Survey

No.58 and measures 0.03 Cents. There is also a house built in the said land.

There is also yet another property in Gramanatham Survey No.58/2 for

which, Patta had been granted in Patta No.432. Both the properties are

situated at Sembakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk in Kanchipuram District.

3.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs

that though the suit was originally instituted for permanent injunction

restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possesion,

subsequently, an amendment had been made to convert the suit to one for

declaration also.

4.The defendant, who had raised an issue with respect to

assignment Pattas granted to the plaintiffs had claimed that Patta had also

been granted to him for the same Gramantham lands.

3/10

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2339 of 2017

5.These issues are to be decided in the course of the trial in the

suit.

6.Trial had commenced. During the course of the trial, the

plaintiffs produced as documents. Exs.A39 to A41, which documents refer

to two separate assignment pattas in the name of the defendant. The

petitioners were able to obtain xerox copies of those two assignment pattas,

which were in the name of the defendant. They wanted to mark the xerox

copies. Though notice has been issued under Order 11 Rule 16 of C.P.C., to

the defendant to produce the originals of the two documents, which they

wanted to mark as Exs.A42 and A43, they were not permitted to do so. The

application in I.A.No.1258 of 2016 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking

permission to mark the xerox copies but the learned District Munsif,

dismissed the said application, necessitating filing of the present revision

petition.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through

the aforementioned facts and stated under Order 11 Rule 16 of C.P.C., there

4/10

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

C.R.P(PD)No.2339 of 2017

is a right of a party, either plaintiff or the defendant to call upon the opposite

side to produce documents in their possession.

8.In the order under challlenge in the revision, the District

Munsif, Tambaram had referred to Rule 75(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice