C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P (PD) No. 122 & 123 of 2018

1.C.Chandiraprakash

2.C.Dhakshinamoorthy

3.S.Mani

4.R.Manickam

5.K.S.Sivamalai

6.R.A.Jaganathan

7.B.Pathamachand Jain

... Petitioners in both CRPs

Vs.

1.Sumathi

2.Sathyavathi

3.Karthikeyan

4.Alli

5.Banumathi

6.Balasubramaniam

... Respondents in both CRPs

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 05.12.2017

made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of

the Principal District Munsif, Salem.

For Petitioner

: Mr.N.Manokaran

For R1 & R2

: Mr.C.Jagadesh

For R3 to R6

: Notice served

1/10

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

C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018

ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and

decreetal order dated 05.12.2017 made in I.A.Nos.972 & 1069 of 2017 in

O.S.No.665 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem,

thereby allowing the petition to permit the respondents to produce certain

documents as documentary evidence.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the

defendants. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration declaring that the

sale deed dated 15.05.2002 as null and void and permanent injunction in

respect of the suit property. After closing the evidence of both sides, the

respondents filed a petition seeking permission to receive additional

documents. Both the petitions were allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the

present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after

closing the plaintiffs side evidence the petitioners filed a petition to re-open

and re-call of P.W.1. Both the petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the

same the petitioners preferred CRP (PD) Nos.4034 & 4035 of 2016 before

2/10

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

C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018

this Court and the same were dismissed by an order dated 07.06.2017 and

directed the Trial Court to consider the issue whether the Court can

Suo-motu directed the respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence as per the

Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC on merits within three weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of the order, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners.

Further directed that if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the

evidence in the suit has to be re-opened, give an opportunity to the

respondents 1 and 2 to let in evidence and the evidence already taken on

behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 shall be eschewed.

4. Accordingly, the Trial Court re-opened the evidence of

respondents 1 and 2 herein. At that juncture, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a

petition seeking permission to receive the additional documents, which were

not pleaded by them in the written statement. The documents which were

sought to be produced before the Trial Court were not even whispered in the

written statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2. It is completely against

the provision of Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. If the respondents 1 and 2 are

allowed to produce those documents, it would cause prejudice to the

3/10

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

C.R.P.(P.D). Nos. 122 & 123 of 2018

petitioners, since they were denied the opportunity of filing the reply

statement for the newly introduced documents. Therefore, the Trial Court

ought not to have allowed the petitions with a permission to produce the

documents. It is contrary to the settled legal position mandated under Order

8 Rule 1(A) of CPC. The sudden introduction of documents which were

never mentioned in the pleadings are not preferred to produce before the

Court below. In fact, the respondents 1 and 2 were already granted

opportunity to re-open their evidence and