IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP Nos.482 and 489 of 2024 and CMP No.2297 of 2024 V.Jayapal (deceased)

1 . J.Jansirani

2 . J.Sivakumar

3 . J.Sridhar

4 . J.Supriya ... Petitioner(s)

in both CRPS Vs.

1. S.Kasthuri

2 . S.Anandan

3 . S.Rajendiran ... Respondent(s)

in both CRPS PRAYER in CRP No.482 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.111 of 2009, dated 23.11.2023 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

PRAYER in CRP No.489 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.111 of 2009, dated 23.11.2023 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Jayaprakash For Respondent(s): Ms.D.Chitra Maragatham for M/s T.R.Rajaraman

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking to reopen the plaintiffs side evidence and to receive the documents.

2. The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.111 of 2009 for recovery of possession against the respondents/defendants. According to the petitioners, the suit property was originally allotted to one Govindammal under a registered partition deed dated 16.08.1965 and the said Govindammal, out of love and affection, settled the property in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, vide registered settlement deed dated 28.07.1976. It is the case of the petitioners that the defendants are permissive occupants of the suit property and they refused to vacate the property, despite repeated requests made by the petitioners and hence, the said suit has been laid. Along with the plaint, the copies of the above mentioned documents were filed as document Nos.1 and 2. However, at the time of examination of plaintiffs side witness, the settlement deed dated 28.07.1976 was not marked and after completion of trial, the suit was posted for arguments. At this state, the instant applications have been filed by the petitioners seeking reopen the plaintiffs side evidence and to receive the additional documents, namely settlement deed dated 28.07.1976 and the promissory notes executed by the first and 2nd petitioner dated 15.07.2021. The said applications were dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that, earlier, similar applications were filed by the petitioners seeking reception of partition deed dated 16.08.1965, however, the petitioners failed to mark the settlement deed at that point of time. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications, the petitioners have come before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents sought to be produced are not new documents and the same were referred in the averments of the plaint as well as in the list of plaint documents. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the trial court ought to have allowed the petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that the suit is of the year 2009 and the petitioners are dragging suit proceedings by filing vexatious applications. Taking into consideration the above facts, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application.

5. The settlement deed sought to be received in evidence was referred in the averments of the plaint and the copy was also filed as document No.2. The petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the said suit for recovery of possession based on the said document alone and it is a core document to establish their claim before the Trial Court. It is seen from the records that earlier, the petitioners filed similar applications for reception of partition deed dated 16.08.1965. However, at the time of filing the above said applicati