Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
A.T.Loganathan – Appellant
Versus
Chandra – Respondent
CRP No. 3217 of 2025|CRP NO. 3218 OF 2025|CRP NO. 3220 OF 2025|CMP NO. 17853 OF 2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rabi Anandh
For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Prabu For R1 To R5
Trial court must allow relevant additional evidence like employment certificate to prove property purchase source in partition suits, without prejudice.
Headnote:Article 227 of the Constitution of India governs the supervisory jurisdiction invoked in these civil revision petitions against the trial court's dismissal of applications to reopen evidence and recall witnesses. The suit concerns partition of property claimed by plaintiffs as belonging to their deceased mother, while defendants assert it was purchased by their father, a police department employee, in her name, supported by a will. The court found the employment discharge certificate essential to prove the father's economic status and source of funds, rejecting the trial court's view that applications were dilatory. Key issue framed: Whether defendants should be permitted additional documents and recall of witness to substantiate defence without prejudice. Ratio: Denial of opportunity defeats valid right to defend; document relevant to source of income in partition suit over benami purchase claim, warranting interference under Article 227. Civil Revision Petitions allowed; trial court orders in I.A.Nos.3 to 5 of 2025 in O.S.No.221 of 2015 set aside; parties directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court dismissal of applications to reopen evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants seek document for father's economic status; plaintiffs claim irrelevance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court allows applications to prevent prejudice to defence rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
In all CRPs For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rabi Anandh For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Prabu For R1 To R5 R-6 - No Appearance COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned common order passed in I.A.Nos.3 to 5 of
2025 in O.S.No.221 of 2015 by the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 to 6 preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
2.Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 to 6 have filed applications to reopen, to recall D.W.1 and to receive the additional documents. All the applications were dismissed by the trial judge on hearing both sides stating that in order to drag on the proceedings and without giving sufficient reasons, the applications were filed. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioner preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
3.The learned counsel for revision petitioners/defendants 1, 3 to 6 would submit that before the trial court, their sisters filed the suit for the relief of partition claiming share in the suit property. According to the defendants, the suit property was not purchased by their father, but the same was purchased in the name of mother. So, to prove the economic status of father, they wanted to produce the employment discharge certificate as a necessary document, but the trial judge without giving opportunity, erroneously dismissed the applications.
Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
4.The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 have raised objections stating that the said document is irrelevant one and it is not a necessary document and sufficient opportunity was already given to the parties, since the case became part-heard long back of the year 2024. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions.
5.Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of records, it reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 claiming share in the suit property said to belong to their deceased mother. But, according to the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 to 6, the property was not purchased by their mother as she has no source of income and only their father had purchased the property in the name of mother as he was employed in the police department. To prove the fact that their father purchased the suit property, they wanted to produce the employment discharge certificate given by the police department and also contended that their father executed a Will thereafter. In order to prove their defence, the said document is necessary and there is a suit filed for the relief of partition. However, according to the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5, property belonged to their mother, but according to the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 3 to 6, the property belonged to their father and also contended that their father executed a Will in favour of his son, besides, they have also contended that the property was purchased by him in the name of mother. So, to prove the source of income of father, who was employed in the police department, they wanted to produce the employment discharge certificate. If such opportunity is not given to them, their valid right to defend the case will be defeated and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5. Therefore, all the applications are ordered to be allowed and this court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in I.A.Nos.3 to 5 of 2025 in O.S.No.221 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the suit proceedings. The trial court is directed to complete the trial and dispose the case as early
