C.R.P(PD).No.2544 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.08.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

C.R.P(PD).No.2544 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.13001 of 2022

P.Sivanandhan

... Petitioner

Vs

K.Ararankutty

... Respondent

Prayer:- Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set

aside the order dated 13.4.2022 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.4746 of 2017

by the learned IV Additional Judge, FAC III Additional Court, City Civil Court,

Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sridevi

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated

13.4.2022 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.4746 of 2017 by the learned IV

Additional Judge, FAC III Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.

Page 1 / 5

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

C.R.P(PD).No.2544 of 2022

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials

available on record.

3.The revision petitioner is the defendant, against whom, the

respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.4746 of 2017 for recovery of arrears of

rent along with damages, future profits and for permanent injunction. Pending

disposal of the suit, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.6 of

2020 seeking to produce a licence in the name of the plaintiff, in order to substantiate

the defence of the defendant. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the

same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is the

owner of the suit property. The allegation of the plaintiff itself is that he has obtained

a licence to conduct a hotel business in the demised property and the said licence was

assigned in favour of the revision petitioner and he was allowed to conduct the hotel

business by himself. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted

that having got the licence in the name of the plaintiff, he ought not to have assigned

it in favour of the revision petitioner and hence, the agreement itself is void and

Page 2 / 5

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

C.R.P(PD).No.2544 of 2022

against the public policy. It is further submitted that, in order to substantiate the same,

the plaintiff should be directed to produce the licence standing in his name. The

plaintiff himself has admitted that the licence stands in his name. That being the case,

it is not necessary to call for the documents to be produced before the Court and that

too to prove the defence of the defendant. Even if the plaintiff had denied the licence

that it doesn’t stand in his name, no petition can be filed to produce the document

which he did not possess.

5. Since the settled law is that admitted facts need not be proved. When the

respondent/plaintiff himself does not quarrel about the fact that the licence is existing

in his name, the revision petitioner has no necessity to prove the fact which has

already been proved. If the petitioner questions the legality of every agreement

entered into between the plaintiff and the revision petitioner/defendant, then the very

possession of revision petitioner in the suit premises itself will become illegal. A

wrong doer cannot take advantage of his own wrong by pleading that on the some

wrongful agreement, he is in possession of the property and hence, he should not be

evicted from the suit premises.

6. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he has filed the

Page 3 / 5

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

C.R.P(PD).No.2544 of 2022

suit for eviction. Since the matters revolving licence has already been admitted and

the petition filed to produce the licence is just superfluous and not essential, the

learned trial Judge has rightly dealt the issue and had chosen to dismiss the petition.

I feel, it does not require any interference.

7. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dis