BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) Nos.19367 of 2025 Suyambulingam ... Petitioner in both C.R.Ps., Vs

1.Gandhi Muniyasamy @ Tomas Gandhi

2.Kamaraj

3.Rathinam @ Rathina Simmasanam Saraswathi (died)

4.Indira Gandhi

5.Jayam 6.Jeeva Chithirai Vadivu (died)

7.Ramar @ Kesalaramu @ Devadoss

8.Maharani

9.Neethiraja

10.Siddhadurai Nadar 11.Arul Prakasa Mary

12.Arputhamani

13.Thommai Prakasam @ Kovilpillai

14.Sesu Maria Soosai

15.Maria Thomas

16.Amaladoss

17.Anthony Selvaraj

18.Chandra Mohan

19.Lakshmanan

20.Sekar ... Respondents in both C.R.Ps., COMMON PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2025, on the fie of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam in O.S.No.11 of 2012.

For Petitioner in both C.R.Ps., : Mr.R.J.Karthick

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2025 in O.S.No.

11 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam.

2.The respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam, for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.02.2011 bearing Doc.No.435 of 2011 as null and void and for other consequential reliefs. The trial Court, by its judgement and decree, dated 31.10.2014, decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.40 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti. The lower appellate Court, by its judgement and decree, dated 25.01.2016, set aside the judgement and decree of the trial Court, dated 31.10.2014 and remanded the suit back to the trial Court for conducting fresh trial. Thereafter, the suit was remanded back to the trial Court and the same is now pending.

3.During the course of trial, the petitioner/10^th defendant had filed applications in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2025 to reopen the case and to recall P.W1 to P.W3 for further cross-examination, contending that certain additional information has to be clarified. The trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had dismissed the said applications, vide order, dated 17.11.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner/10^th defendant has filed the present Criminal Revision Cases.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner/10^th defendant would submit that due to the ill-health of the petitioner and his family members, he was not in a position to cross examine the PW1 to PW3 and adduce the evidence on his side. He would further submit that the lower appellate Court has remanded the suit only for letting in evidence, since the evidence had not been adduced on the side of the defendants. However, without considering all those aspects, the learned trial Judge closed the evidence on the side of P.W.1 to P.W3. He would further submit that if the suggestions are not permitted to be put, the petitioner/10^th defendant would be put to irreparable loss, as he could not able to dislodge the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W3. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the order impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions.

5.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.On perusal of the impugned order, dated 17.11.2025, that the trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had been protracting the proceedings and that the petitioner had also not stated his exact illness and had not produced the medical records to substantiate his claim of illness. The trial Court has also recorded that despite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner he failed to utilize his opportunities. Therefore, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions.

7.Even though this Court is not inclined to set aside the order dated

17.11.2025 made in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 of