C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2744 to 2746 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On : 29.04.2021

Delivered On : 17.06.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)Nos.2744 to 2746 of 2018

and C.M.P.(MD)No.12009 of 2018

Saravanan

Rep. By his power agent

Gurusamy

.. Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

in all C.R.Ps.

Vs.

Krishnan

.. Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

in all C.R.Ps.

Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under

Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and

decreetal common order dated 20.07.2018 made in I.A.No.849 of 2018,

850 of 2018 and 851 of 2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2011 on the file of the

learned Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

For Petitioner(in all C.R.Ps.) : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj

For Respondent(in all C.R.Ps.) : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the

common order passed in I.A.No.849 of 2018, 850 of 2018 and 851 of

2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2011 dated 20.07.2018, on the file of the

learned Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent

herein is the defendant. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in

O.S.No.35 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Munsif,

Aruppukottai for declaration and for injunction. Pending suit, the

petitioner has filed petitions in I.A.No.849 of 2018 to 851 of 2018

for reopening the case and to recall the witness and for permission

to mark additional documents.

3.The brief substance of the petitions in I.A.No.849 to 851

of 2018 is as follows:

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The case was

adjourned for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner came to know

that there was a previous litigations between the defendant and one

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2744 to 2746 of 2018

Vishwakarma Iyenthu vaguppu majana nirvaga sabai wherein the lane

near the house of the defendant which was declared as a common lane

and that the defendant was having 1½ feet in the lane. The

commissioner report filed in that case reveals that the lane is 3

feet width. The judgment and decree of the suit in O.S.No.106 of

1997 is necessary for deciding the matter in issue in the present

suit. On 21.09.1988, the defendant and his brother executed a

partition deed wherein the measurement of the defendant's house and

the measurement of the eastern side portion of the house were

mentioned and that document is also necessary for deciding the case.

Hence, permission should be granted to recall the witness for

marking these two documents and to reopen the case.

4.The brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent

is as follows:

The plaintiff did not mention anything in the plaint

regarding the documents mentioned in those petition. When there is

no pleadings, the petitioner is not entitled to adduce any evidence.

5.After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the

petitions. Against which, the petitioner has filed the Civil

Revision Petitions before this Court.

6.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that

the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction regarding the

first schedule of the property and for declaring the second schedule

property, as the common pathway and to remove the encroachment in

the second schedule property. Only recently the plaintiff came to

know about the earlier suit between the defendant and the

Vishwakarma Iyenthu vaguppu majana nirvaga sabai wherein a

commissioner was appointed and the suit second schedule property was

mentioned as a common pathway in the commissioner report and plan

and that those documents are necessary for deciding the suit

property. The trial Court counsel wrongly mentioned the section

number in the petition. Instead of Order 7 Rule 14, Order 13 Rule 2

was wrongly mentioned by the couns