##PAGE1##

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 27.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

Narayana Raju

through his Power Agent, Hayachandran K.Nair. : Petitioner

Vs.

1.A.Parvatham

2.N.Pushpa

3.N.Mala

4.N.Mythra

5.Vishalakshiammal @ Visalam : Respondents

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the impugned return order passed in unnumbered I.A.No..... of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Ambasamuthram, dated 25.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 11:30:58 am )

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of return,

dated 25.11.2025 made in the petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., (Order XIII Rule 9 of C.P.C.,) for return of original sale deed, dated 25.03.1991, which came to be marked by the fifth defendant in the suit as

Ex.B.1.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would

submit that the petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2018 for declaration and permanent injunction, and the same came to be decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the fifth defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.62 of 2022. The learned Appellate Judge, by a conditional order, directed the fifth defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the plaintiff and, upon such compliance, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to the fifth defendant to adduce evidence and to conduct a fresh trial. It is further submitted that since the fifth defendant failed to comply with the said condition, the appeal stood dismissed. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present application seeking return

of the original title deed.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 11:30:58 am )

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

3.The learned Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, returned

the petition on the ground that the present revision petitioner has no locus standi, as the document was not produced by him, and that only the legal heirs of the deceased fifth defendant would be entitled to seek return of the

document.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fifth

defendant, in her written statement, claimed to be the second wife of the plaintiff’s father and that she had no issues. He placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in R.Shankar v. E.Rammohan Chowdary (2024 (3) CurCC 29), wherein it has been held that the scope of Order XIII Rule 9 C.P.C. is not confined merely to the party who produced the document, but extends to ensuring that the document is returned to the person lawfully entitled to it, in the interest of justice. The

relevant passages are extracted hereunder ;

“ 11. In this case, the Trial Court's decision to withhold the documents from the petitioner based solely on the fact that they were produced by the respondent, ignores the broader purpose of Order XIII Rule 9. The provision is not strictly limited to the party that physically submits the documents in Court. Instead, it extends to ensuring rightful ownership and

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 11:30:58 am )

C.R.P.(MD)No.637 of 2026

fair administration of justice. This means that the Rule should be applied in a manner that recognizes the rightful owner of the documents, irrespective of who produced them during

trial.

12. By rigidly applying the literal language of Order XIII Rule 9, the Trial Court lost sight of an essential principle: the plaintiff, having lost the suit, has no legitimate claim to retain the title documents. These title documents inherently belong to the petitioner. The respondent's role in producing the documents during the litigation process does not confer ownership or a right to retain them post