BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 26/02/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR CMP(MD).No.2484 of 2026

1. Karuppanan @ Joseph

2. Pitchaimani

3. M.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioners Vs

1. Ayyanar (Died)

1.Selvakumar 2. Palanisamy 3. Sathiyakala

4. M.Vasiyammal 5. N.Pandiyammal

6. N.Kaliraj

7. S.Suruliraj 8. P.Lakshmi

9. N.Anandhan

10. Suruliyammal

11. M.Surulivel

12. P.Pandiyammal

13. Thanikodi

14. Chellappan 15. Neelavathi

16. Parthiban

17. Santhi

18. Jeya

19. Surya

20. Saraswathi

21. Murugeshwari

22. Rathinaselvi

23. Renganayagi, 24. Krishnaveni, 25. Radhakrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER :-

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to allow this civil revision petition by setting aside the impugned fair order and executable order dated 17-11-2025 passed in I.A.No. 19/2025 in O.S.No.108/2015 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court at Aundipatti,Theni District and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioners : Mr. K.Anbumanikandan Tamilsooriyan ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and executable order dated 17.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2025 in O.S.No.108 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aundipatti, Theni District.

2. The said interlocutory application was filed by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs seeking to recall the evidence of D.W.15 and D.W.

16, who were examined on the side of the defendants.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that D.W.15 and D.W.16 are official witnesses and that the petitioners sought to recall them for the purpose of marking certain revenue records such as patta and other connected documents, which according to the petitioners are available in the public domain. It is the contention of the petitioners that recalling the said witnesses would enable the petitioners to properly place the relevant revenue records before the Court for adjudication of the dispute.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

5. It is seen that the application filed before the trial Court was only for the purpose of recalling D.W.15 and D.W.16 in order to mark certain revenue records. However, the petitioners have not taken appropriate steps in accordance with Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which governs the procedure for summoning and producing public documents through the concerned authorities.

6. When the documents sought to be marked are public documents maintained by revenue authorities, the party seeking to rely upon such documents must take proper procedural steps by filing the necessary application before the Court for summoning the records or for producing certified copies in the manner known to law. In the present case, the petitioners have not taken any such steps nor has proper application been filed explaining the necessity for recalling the said witnesses in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Civil Rules of Practice.

7. In the absence of compliance with the required procedure, a mere application seeking recall of official witnesses for the purpose of marking revenue records cannot be entertained. The trial Court, upon considering these aspects, has rightly dismissed the application. This Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

26.02.2026 TRP Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no TO The District Munsif Court at Aundipatti,Theni District N. SENTHILKUMAR,J TRP CMP(MD).No.2484 of 2026 Date : 26/02/2026