C.R.P(PD)Nos.1048 & 1049 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

C.R.P(PD).Nos.1048 & 1049 of 2017

and

CMP.Nos.5080 & 5081 of 2017

A.Jayapal

..Petitioner in both CRPs'

Vs.

M.Devasigamani

..Respondent in both CRPs'

Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order in I.A.Nos.1308

& 1309 of 2016 in O.S.Nos.775 & 771 of 2006 on the file of the Princial

District Munsif Court, Vellore dated 02.02.2017.

For Petitioner in both CRPs : Ms.R.Sripriya for

Mr.V.Raghavachari

For Respondent in both CRPs : Mr.A.Gowthaman

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since arguments were argued in both the revision petitions, it is

only prudent that a common order is passed.

1/10

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

C.R.P(PD)Nos.1048 & 1049 of 2017

2.C.R.P.No.1048 of 2017 has arisen out of an order dated

02.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.1308 of 2016 in O.S.No.775 of 2006, which

suit is now pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at

Vellore. C.R.P.No.1049 of 2017 had been filed against an order dated dated

02.02.2017 in I.A.No.1309 of 2016 in O.S.No.771of 2006, which suit is

also pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vellore.

3.Both the aforementioned suits in O.S.Nos.771 & 775 of 2006

had been instituted by the same plaintiff, A.Jayapal, who is also the revision

petitioner in both the revision petitions herein. O.S.No.771 of 2006 had

been filed seeking a direction against the defendant therein / respondent

herein to pay a sum of Rs.61,670/- stating that the aforesaid amount was

arrears of rent payable to the plaintiff / Jayapal and also for the costs of the

suit.

4.O.S.No.775 of 2006, had been filed seeking a judgment against

the defendant for payment of a sum of Rs.61,670/- again claiming arrears of

rent payable to the plaintif. The property, for which the said rent is claimed,

2/10

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

C.R.P(PD)Nos.1048 & 1049 of 2017

is a residential premises at ground floor bearing Old Door No.19/D, New

Door No.59/4, Chunnamambukkara Street, Vellore. The same premises is

the subject property in both the suits.

5.Both the parties had an occasion to come earlier before this

Court by filing two revision petitions in the aforementioned two suits in

CRP(PD)Nos.4091 & 4092 of 2014. The defendant in the two suits,

Devasigamani was the revision petitioner in the aforementioned two

revision petitions. Necessity to file the said two revision petitions arose

owing to an order passed in I.A.No.140 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2006 and

in I.A.No.141 of 2014 in O.S.No.775 of 2006. I refer to the order in the

earlier Civil Revision Petitions because they appear to be quite connected

with the issues raised in the present Civil Revision Petitions.

6.I.A.Nos.140 & 141 of 2014 in the two suits had been filed by

the defendant, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking

permission to mark xerox copy of the rental agreement dated 28.07.2005 as

secondary evidence. It necessitated the learned judge hearing the Civil

3/10

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

C.R.P(PD)Nos.1048 & 1049 of 2017

Revision Petitions to first examine or whether any such agreement in the

nature of a rental agreement had actually been entered into. If the original is

available and could not be produced, the sufficient reasons should be given

for producing the secondary evidence / xerox copy and not the original. The

learned Judge, during the hearing of the said revision petitions, examined

the provisions under Section 63 of the Evidence Act and conditions which

permit marking of secondary evidence and thereafter, had observed as

follows:-

“11.The petitioner is seeking to mark xerox copy of the

rental agreement dated 28.07.2005 entered between the respondent's

father Ann