IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.Nos.2834 & 2988 of 2024 R.Narayanan @ Rose .... Petitioner in both CRPs Vs A.Thameem Ansari .... Respondent in both CRPs Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.10751 of 2010 and I.A.No.3 o 2023 in O.S.No.10751 of 2010, dated

16.10.2023 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.G.Santhanalakshmi (in both CRPs) for Mr.K.Mohanamurali For Respondent : Mr.A.Abdul Ranvoof (in both CRPs)

COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the orders dated

16.10.2023 passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court Chennai, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to re- open plaintiff's side evidence and to recall the plaintiff's side in O.S.No.10751 of 2010.

2 The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 10.08.2004 and for other incidental reliefs. The trial in the suit has already commenced and when the suit is in the stage of DW1's cross, the petitioner filed the instant applications seeking to reopen the case and to recall the plaintiff's side evidence. The said applications was dismissed by the trial Court by orders dated 16.10.2023, on the ground that though sufficient opportunity and time have been given to the plaintiff, the same has not been utilised by the plaintiff at that relevant point of time. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale agreement relied on by the petitioner, which is marked as Ext.A1 was seriously disputed by respondent/defendant. Therefore, the petitioner wants to examine one of the attestors to Ext.A1, namely R.Prabakaran and his evidence is very material, considering the defence raised by the respondent. Therefore, the plaintiff prays that an opportunity may be given to him, in the interest of the case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1, the petitioner herein, was examined as early as on 2013 and the present application has been filed by the petitioner at the stage of D.W.1 cross, nearly after a lapse of 10 years and taking into consideration the long delay on the part of the petitioner, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Therefore, the said impugned orders need not be interfered in these revisions.

5. The reading of the pleadings of the parties would indicate that the core controversy involved in this lis is relating to the genuineness of suit sale agreement marked as Ext.A1. In the light of controversy in the pleadings, the evidence of one of the attestors to Ext.A1 will have a bearing on the outcome of the suit. The petitioner wants to reopen the case only for the purpose of examination of attestor to Ext.A1. Taking into consideration the main issue involved in this suit, this Court feels that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner for the purpose of examining the attestor to Ext.A1.

6. The petitioner has approached the Court with the above prayers with a long delay of 10 years. It is seen from the typed set of papers that petitioner/P.W.1 was examined as early as 2013 and the petitioner filed an application for production of additional documents and the same was also allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner side evidence was closed in the year 2019. Taking into consideration the delay in filing these applications, this Court feels that the petitioner may be put on terms.

7. Accordingly these two revision petitions are allowed on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.10751 of 2010, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the civil revision petition will stand automatically di