1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP (PD) No. 718 of 2023

And

C.M.P.No. 5589 of 2023

The Tamilnadu Small & Tiny

Industries Association

Rep. by its General Secretary

No.10, G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

... Petitioner/1^st Respondent

Vs

1. S.Anburajan

2. M.Hindunathan

3. V.S.Manimaran

... 1^st to 3^rd respondents/plaintiffs

4.

K.Mariappan

5. V.Nithyanantham

6. S.Ashok

7. S.Vasudevan

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

2

8.

S.Surulivel

9.

K.T.Kannappan

10.

A.Anna Durai

11.

G.Kathiresan

12.

M.V.Swaminathan

13. N.Elango

14. G.Ravindran

15.

P.N.Ragunatharaja

...

Respondents/Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the fair and final order made in I.A.No. 18 of

2022 in O.S.No. 9277 of 2021 dated 31.01.2023 on the file of the XV

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

***

For Petitioner

: Mr. G.Murugendran

For Caveator

: Mr. R.Thiagarajan

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

3

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the first respondent in I.A.No. 18 of 2022

and also the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 9277 of 2021 on the file

of the City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.

The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of

declaration that the election held to the post of Office bearers of the

Executive Committee of the 1^st Defendant Association on 23.09.2021 as

null and void and other consequential reliefs.

3.

The defendants are contested the suit and they filed their

written statement and the suit is ripe for trial. During the pedency of the

trial proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an application by invoking under

Sections 45, 47 & 73 of the Evidence Act read with Order XXVI Rule 10A

of CPC. The said application was strongly objected by the first respondent

along with other contested defendants stating that the application is not

maintainable and also the said pancard is no way connected with the suit

and it is not mandatory to participate as a candidate or to vote in the

election process and the disputed pancard is not the basis for the suit.

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

4

Further, there is a lack of particulars in the affidavit and custody of the

pancard has not been properly described. Hence, they raise strong

objection.

4.

Considering both the statement, the trial Judge finally held

that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the authenticity of the

pancard is verified by a competent authority and also held that in order to

find out the genunity of the pancard (6 Nos.), an Advocate Commissioner

has been appointed and directed him to take all necessary steps to call for

the pancard in dispute from the parties, send the same and make

consultation with the scientific experts of document division, Forensic

Sciences Department, Mylapore and shall take aid of the competent

authority if necessary. Challenging the said order, the first defendant

preferred this Revision.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

submits that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the basic

requirement to invoke Order 26 Rule 10A only at the time of evidence and

not before the trial. Furthermore, the documents sought to be sent for

scientific examination, there is no specific pleading in the plaint without

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

5

which the plaintiffs are not entitled to file such application and inspite

dismissing the application, the trial Court has erroneously allowed the

same. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the same. He would

further submit that the plaintiffs are not entitled to collect the evidence