IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.2675 of 2026 G.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner vs.

R.Shanmugasundaram ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 01.11.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.100 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palladam by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vasudevan

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palladam in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.100 of

2021, dated 01.11.2025 allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking reopening of the case for the purpose of examining one Periyasamy on behalf of the respondent.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money based on Promissory Note. The petitioner herein filed written statement and resisted the suit by denying the execution of Promissory Note. On behalf of the respondent already two witnesses were examined and his side evidence was closed on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed respondent/plaintiff seeking to examine one Periyasamy, who said to have introduced the defendant to the plaintiff. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court to the Chief Examination of PW.1 would submit that in the chief examination, PW.1 categorically deposed that the defendant approached him and obtained loan. However, in the cross examination, the respondent/plaintiff deposed, as if the defendant was introduced him by one Periyasamy. Since the Periyasamy’s name has not been mentioned in the Chief Examination of PW.1, evidence in the cross examination is nothing but an after thought. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not have permitted the respondent to examine Periyasamy.

4. A perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 would indicate that in more than one occasion, the respondent categorically deposed that the defendant was introduced to him by one Periyasamy and he has been doing finance business. The suit is for recovery of money based on Promissory Note and the petitioner herein denied very execution of the Promissory Note. According to the respondent, the petitioner was introduced to the respondent by Periyasamy and the suit transaction had taken place at his presence. Therefore, the evidence of Periyasamy assumes importance in the facts of the case. Whether reference about Periyasamy is an after thought or not is the matter to be decided at the time of final disposal.

5. Now, the respondent based on his evidence that the said Periyasamy introduced the defendant, wants to examine Periysasmy as a witness. The examination of Periyasamy will certainly throw more light into the alleged suit transaction. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the same and allowed the application. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palladam in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.100 of

2021, dated 01.11.2025.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm To The Subordinate Judge, Palladam.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm

09.02.2026