C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

C.R.P.(PD) No.1888 of 2019

and C.M.P. No.12422 of 2019

1. Panneerselvam

2. Muniammal

3. Saravanan

...Petitioners

Versus

Kala

...Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set side the fair and decreetal order, dated 13.02.2019 passed in I.A.

No.627 of 2018 in O.S. No.133 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Munsif

Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

For Petitioners

: Mr. P.A.Sudhesh Kumar

For Respondent

: Mr. R.Jayaprakash

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the

Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in I.A. No.627 of

2018 in O.S. No.133 of 2014.

1 of 6

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

C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.133 of 2014 on

the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District. The

respondents in this Civil Revision Petition as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.

No.133 of 2014 for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The revision

petitioners filed a written statement. Later the suit was amended as one for

declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Earlier the suit was decreed

by a judgment and decree dated 10.08.2016. However, the revision petitioners

filed an appeal in A.S. No.34 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tirupattur, and the

same was allowed and the suit was remitted to the trial Court for fresh

consideration permitting denovo trial. After remand, the revision petitioners

filed an application to permit the petitioners to examine Village Administrative

Officer, Simmanapudur Village, Tirupattur Taluk, to produce 'A' Register Chitta

and Adangal for Fasli 1422 to 1426 Fasli and to give evidence thereon. The

application was contested by the respondent on the ground that the Tahsildar

and Deputy Tahsildar of the Tirupattur Taluk had already been examined and

that they have produced 'A' Register which was marked as Ex.X1. Since the

higher officials like Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar had already been examined

to mark Adangal accounts and other revenue records, it is contended by the

2 of 6

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

C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019

respondent that the application filed by the revision petitioners is to drag on the

proceedings. After holding that the examination of Village Administrative

Officer is not necessary since the Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar have already

been examined and 'A' Register as well as Chitta adangal for Fasli 1422 to 1426

Fasli had already been marked, the learned Principal District Munsif,

Tirupattur, dismissed the application.

3. This Court is unable to find any irregularity in the order of the lower

Court dismissing the petition which was filed after remand. Learned counsel

contended that one of the Adangal extract for Fasli 1422 was not marked and

therefore the Village Administrative Officer can be examined as he is the

authority competent to prepare and maintain Adangal accounts. It is further

stated that the appellate Court earlier remitted the matter to give opportunities

to the parties to give further evidence. Referring to the same, the learned counsel

further submitted that the lower Court refused to given an opportunity to the

petitioner by dismissing the application. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners is unable to point out any serious prejudice that is caused to the

petitioners by the dismissal of the application.

3 of 6

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

C.R.P. (PD) No. 1888 of 2019