IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA in C.S.No.65 of 2008 1. Mr.Arjun B.Kothari Kothari Bagh, No.18, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600

034.

Applicant(s)

Vs

1. Pradeep D Kothari

29, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

2.M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd No.114, Mahatma Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 Duly Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr.Pradip D Kothari.

3.Bekae Proprities Pvt lTD No.603, Kesava, 6th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai

400 051.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Application is filed to grant leave to the Applicant/Plaintiff No.18 in the suit, to file the following documents.

For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Srinivas, Sr.Counsel for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam and Associates For Respondent: Mr.R.Thiagarajan for D3 Mr.S.Seenuvasan for R1 Mr.S.Sivaraman for R2

ORDER

This application is filed to receive documents listed in the Judge’s summon.

2. The third respondent has filed his counter. The respondents 1 and 2 did not file their counter.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant / 18^th plaintiff submitted that the documents were exchanged between the parties and they are very much relevant to decide the issue in this case. He further submitted that as these documents were not available at the time when the suit was filed and they came into existence only recently, the applicant was not in a position to file them along with the plaint.

4. The learned counsel for the third respondent has objected stating that these documents are not relevant and they are not supported by any pleadings made in the plaint. He further submitted that the application has been filed just to protract the proceedings despite these documents have been available with the deceased father of the applicant who stood as the first plaintiff.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has undertaken that he would file the originals of the Letters mentioned in the list.

6. The relevancy of the documents sought to be produced cannot be looked into at this stage of reception of the documents and the respondents are at liberty to raise their objection at the time when the documents are marked. As the third respondent has raised his objection with regard to the genuineness and proof, that should also be the burden on the part of the party who is trying to rely on the documents in case they are marked as evidence. As there is no objection as to the admissibility of these documents, I feel the application can be allowed.

7. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the documents are allowed to be received subject to proof and relevancy.

11-02-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No bkn R.N.MANJULA J.

bkn In C.S.No.65 of 2008

11-02-2026