CRP.PD.Nos.673, 676 & 677/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 03.12.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

CRP.PD.Nos.673, 676 & 677/2019 & CMP.Nos.4422, 4437 &

4440/2019

R.Radhakrishnan

..

Petitioner in all

the Petitions

Versus

1.Mr.Barathan

2.Mrs.Valliammal

3.The Branch Manager

Catholic Syrian Bank

No.474, 476 & 478,

Mahatma Gandhi Road

Puducherry 605 001.

4.C.Sadanandam

5.Union Territory of Puducherry

rep.by its Chief Secretary

Chief Secretariat Office

Puducherry.

6.The Sub Registrar, Oulgaret

The Sub Registrar Office

Reddiarpalayam

Puducherry.

..

Respondents in

all the Petitions

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.Nos.673, 676 & 677/2019

Common Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 03.11.2018 passed in

IA.Nos.460, 461 & 462/2018 in OS.No.28/2010 by the learned I

Additional District Munsif Judge, Puducherry.

For Petitioners in

all the Petitions

:

Mr.V.S.Senthil Kumar

For RR 1 & 2 in

all the Petitions

:

No appearance

For R3 in all the

Petitions

:

Mr.K.Rajasekaran

For R4 in all the

Petitions

:

Mr.K.Mohan

For RR 5&6 in

all the Petitions

:

Ms.G.Djearany

COMMON ORDER

(1)

These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders

dated 03.11.2018 passed by the learned I Additional District

Munsif Judge, Puducherry, in IA.Nos.460/2018, 461/2018 and

462/2018, which were filed to reopen, to recall the plaintiff's side

witness and to mark certain documents.

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.Nos.673, 676 & 677/2019

(2)

The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.28/2010 on the file of the

learned I Additional District Munsif Judge, Puducherry, is the

revision petitioner herein in all the above Civil Revision Petitions.

(3)

The revision petitioner filed the suit in OS.NO.28/2010 before the

learned I Additional District Munsif Judge, Puducherry, for a

declaration that the Sale Deed dated 11.04.1988 executed in

favour of the 1^st defendant's father regarding fifth item of suit ''A''

Schedule property and registered on 26.04.1988, is null and void

and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit is also for a declaration

to declare yet another Sale Deed dated 31.03.1995 executed by the

1^st defendant and his father in favour of the 2^nd defendant as null

and void and not binding on the plaintiff. As against defendants 5

and 6 in the suit, the prayer was to make necessary entries in the

Revenue Records consequent to the prayer, declaring the Sale

Deeds as null and void.

(4)

After commencement of the trial, the revision petitioner filed

IA.Nos.460, 461 & 462/2018 in OS.No.28/2010 to reopen, to

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.Nos.673, 676 & 677/2019

recall PW1 and for marking certain documents through PW1. All

the three Interlocutory Applications were seriously contested by

the defendants/respondents mainly on the ground that the

applications are belated and are filed to protract the proceedings.

(5)

The Lower Court dismissed all the three Interlocutory

Applications only on the ground that the three documents filed by

the plaintiff/revision petitioner are Xerox copies and the same are

without proper authentication. Though the documents are public

documents, it was held that Xerox copies cannot be marked

through chief examination of any party and only certified copies

can be marked.

(6)

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / plaintiff pointed

out that long before the disposal of the Interlocutory Applications,

the revision petitioner/plaintiff had filed a Memo along with

certified copies of all the three documents to replace the Xerox

copies of the same. Therefore, on the basis of the Memo, the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff contended that

the Lower Court has passed the common order in the above

Interlocutory Applications without an applic