IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CMP.Nos.15940 and 15959 of 2024 In both CRP’s P.S.J.Palanirajan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. R. Selvanayagam @ R. Sundar

2. M.Gunaseelan

3. Manonmani 4. A.Sankaran

5. M.S.Raja

6. Thandayuthapani 7. M/s. Indian Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ashok Nagar Branch, NO.15, First Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer in CRP.No.2977 of 2024 The civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned common order dated 05.04.2024 passed in IA No.3 of 2023 in OS No.115/2016, pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee with exemplary cost to this Petitioner.

Prayer in CRP.No.2981 of 2024 The civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned common order dated 05.04.2024 passed in IA No.2 of 2023 in OS No.115/2016, pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee with exemplary cost to this Petitioner.

For Petitioner M.Vimal Bobby Crimson in both CRP’s :

For Respondents M/s. Adinarayana Rao for R1 in both CRP’s:

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the first respondent/ first defendant seeking to reopen the case and recall DW1.

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking declaration of title and for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The petitioner also sought for declaration that various documents dated 07.07.1979, 08.04.1986, 09.07.2008, 07.09.2009 and 11.03.2011 were null and void. The trial in the suit was already over and the same was posted for arguments on the side of the defendants. At this stage, the 1^st respondent/1st defendant filed instant applications seeking to re-open the case and recall DW1 and the said applications were allowed by the trial court on condition that the 1^st respondent/1st defendant shall pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contended that the first respondent has not given any convincing reason for allowing the application to reopen the case and the trial court, without considering the application in proper manner, simply allowed the same in the guise of giving opportunity to the first respondent. It is also stated by the learned counsel that application for reopen cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae in the case of the defendant.

4. The learned counsel for the contesting first respondent submitted that at the time of trial the original documents were not available with the first defendant. Therefore, the same was not filed. Now only, they got possession of the originals. Therefore, the instant application has been filed and the document sought to be marked by the first defendant is very much vital to decide the issues involved in the suit.

5. It is true that Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae in the evidence of the parties. However, in the case on hand, the 1^st defendant, in his affidavit, has stated that at the time of trial, he possessed only xerox copies and hence, he could not mark the same and now only he was able to get the originals of the documents.

6. In view of the said reasoning, having regard to the nature of the prayer in the suit, this Court feels that yet another opportunity shall be given to the 1^st respondent to recall DW1 and produce necessary documents through him. 7. It is seen from the records that the suit was posted for arguments of defendants as early as 24.07.2023 and the instant applications have been filed only thereafter. Taking into consideration the delay on the part of the first defendant, this Court is inclined to enhance the cost to be payable by the first d