C.R.P.No.3030 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 23.09.2022

PRONOUNCED ON

: 18.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.3030 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.16360 of 2022

1.Venkatesh Coke and Power Limited,

Represented by its Director,

Mr.Ravi Agarwal,

No.6926A/D1, Chandrawal Road,

New Delhi-110 007.

2.Ravi Agarwal

.. Petitioners

Vs.

1.M/s.Otto India Private Limited,

No.32, Ezra Street, 7^th Floor,

Kolkata-700 001.

By the Transferee of the Decree

M/s.Papthi Reals,

No.139, T.H.Road, Chennai-600 019.

Represented herein by its partnership

Mr.V.Baskaran.

2.Rahul Swarup

3.Manju Swarup

.. Respondents

1/14

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

C.R.P.No.3030 of 2022

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, pleased to set aside the Fair Order and Decreetal Order in E.A.No.15 of

2022 in E.A.No.6 of 2021 in E.P.No.128 of 2017 in Calcutta High Court

C.S.No.196 of 2005 dated 11.08.2022 on the file of the 1^st Additional District

Judge at Thiruvallur and to dismiss the said application with costs

throughout.

For Petitioners : M/s.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Counsel

for M/s.M.V.Seshachari

For Respondents : M/s.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Senior Counsel

for M/s.Jai Shankar Srinivas Caveator for R1.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by an order allowing a petition to lead oral evidence and

mark documentary evidence in a review application, the petitioner has come

up by way of this revision.

2. The 1^st respondent herein is a transferee decree holder in C.S.No.196

of 2005 on the file of the High Court of Calcutta. The 1^st respondent herein

filed Execution Petition against the revision petitioners and other respondents

in E.P.No.128 of 2017. In the said Execution Petition an exparte order was

2/14

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

C.R.P.No.3030 of 2022

passed against the revision petitioners on 22.10.2008, thereafter the revision

petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte order in E.A.No.48 of

2017. The said E.A.No.48 of 2017 was allowed by the Executing Court by

order dated 18.11.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st respondent herein

filed a review petition in E.A.No.6 of 2021 seeking to review the order dated

18.11.2020 passed in E.A.No.48 of 2017. In the said review application, the

1^st respondent filed a petition in E.A.No.15 of 2022 seeking leave of the

Court to lead oral evidence and mark documents in E.A.No.6 of 2022.

Precisely it was the case of the 1^st respondent that in a petition to set aside the

exparte order filed by the revision petitioners in E.A.No.48 of 2017, he (1^st

respondent) marked Exs.R1 to R23 without examining any witnesses.

Therefore, he wants to mark said documents in review application by leading

oral evidence. The relevant averment of the 1^st respondent in paragraph 21 of

the affidavit filed in E.A.No.15 of 2022 is as follows:

“21. I humbly state that on the side of the decree holder in

E.A.No.48 of 2017, without examining any witness, Exhibits R1

to R23 have been marked. Now, I want to mark the above said

Exhibits R1 to R23 on the side of the decree holder by filing

proof affidavit and providing copy of the same to the other side

and examining myself orally by getting into the witness box.”

3/14

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

C.R.P.No.3030 of 2022

The reading of extract of the 1^st respondent's affidavit would make it clear

that at the time of contesting the petition to set aside the exparte order filed

by the revision petitioner, he failed to lead oral evidence and mark his

documents namely R1 to R23 through witness. Now to cure the defect in his

review application, he wants to lead oral evidence and mark those documents

again through witness. The said application was allowed by the Court below

and a