IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP Nos. 6552, 6556 and 6563 of 2025 and

CMP Nos.32411 of 2025 1. M/s Yazhini Yarn Mills

Rep. by its Proprietor, K.Murugesan,

having office at 124/2, Eranapuram

(Post), Namakkal Taluk,

Namakkal District.

2.K. Murugesan

S/o. Kaliannan, Residing at 172/1,

Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal Taluk,

Petitioner(s)

Namakkal District.

Vs

M/s Padmashree Engineering

Rep. by its Sole Proprietor,

Paramasivam, S/o. Venkatasamy,

having office at 86/1A, Vilankuruchi

Road, Ramakrishnapuram,

Respondent(s)

Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore.

PRAYER in CRP No.6552 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.12.2025 made in IA No.10 of 2025 in COS No.58 of 2024 on the file

of the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore.

PRAYER in CRP No.6556 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.12.2025 made in IA No.9 of 2025 in COS No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore.

PRAYER in CRP No.6563 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.12.2025 made in IA No.11 of 2025 in COS No.58 of 2024 on the file of the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.L.Thirumalaisamy For Respondent(s): Mr.G. Prabhaharan

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed, challenging the orders passed by the Commercial court, dismissing the applications in I.A.No.9, 10 and 11 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.58 of 2024 filed by the petitioners/defendants, seeking to condone the delay in filing certain documents, reopen the case and to recall DW1 for filing the documents.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said commercial suit for recovery of money for the machineries supplied by them to the petitioners/ defendants. As per the original plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it supplied machineries to the petitioners/defendants worth about Rs.5,89,82,299 and the plaintiff clearly admitted that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.4,72,55,200/- on different dates through bank transactions. Subsequently, an amendment application in I.A.No.2 of 2024 was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff seeking amendment of figure with regard to the repayment made by the respondents/defendants. The repayment amount of Rs.4,72,55,200 mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the plaint was sought to be substituted with a lessor figure of Rs.2,01,00,000/-. Though the said amendment was opposed by the petitioners/defendants and the amendment was rejected by the Trial Court, the said application was allowed by this court in CRP No.451 of 2025 dated 21.08.2025. While allowing the said amendment application, this court gave liberty to the petitioners/defendants to lead evidence to establish that the amounts repaid by them are Rs.4,72,55,200/- instead of Rs.2,01,00,000/-. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants filed additional written statement asserting the payment of Rs.4,72,55,200/-. The parties went to the trial and during cross examination of DW1 by the respondent/plaintiff, he admitted that the payment made by cash for more than Rs.2,00,000/- was reflected in the I.T. Returns. Hence, it necessitated the petitioners/defendants to file the instant applications for reception of additional evidence and reopening the evidence and to recall DW1 for marking additional documents.

4. The cross examination of DW1 was done on 11.11.2025 and the present application for reception of additional documents has been filed by the petitioners/defendants on 20.11.2025 i.e. within 9 days. Hence, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff vehemently contended that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners/defendants were not filed along