CRP/6373/2026 of Vittobai Vs E.Srileka on 7 October 2026

ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.08.2026 made in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2026 in O.S.No.33 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Madurantakam, wherein the applications filed by the petitioners/defendants for reopening and to issue summons to the Thasildar to produce certain documents, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard Mr.V.V.Gridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and carefully perused the material available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order..

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2018 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The trial was completed and the case was at the stage of final arguments. At that stage, the applications came to be filed by the petitioners/defendants to reopen and to issue summons to the Tahsildar to produce certain documents. These applications came to be dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed before this Court.

4. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioners/defendants is that the Tahsildar, by an order dated 04.12.2017 has rendered a finding as if the order dated 09.02.2015 through which assignment patta was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner was a forged document. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal has also been filed before the Revenue

Divisional Officer and the same is pending. In view of the same, the petitioners were only seeking for issuance of summons to the Tahsildar for production of relevant documents to substantiate that patta was given originally in favour of S.Senthil Kumar, who is the husband of the plaintiff. If this opportunity is not given to the petitioners, they will lose their valuable defence in the present case.

5. In the case in hand, the petitioners/defendants had sought for production of documents by the Tahsildar viz., UDR Chitta, A-Register, Adangal extract and proceedings of mutation of patta. Insofar as the assignment of patta in favour of the petitioners/defendants is concerned, it is already a subject matter of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the proceedings are yet to reach its finality. The petitioners want these documents to be produced by the Tahsildar to substantiate that the revenue documents were in fact issued in the name of the plaintiff's husband.

6. The Court below has rendered a finding that these documents sought for by the petitioner can always be obtained by applying for certified copy. The summoning of authorities before the Court can take place only if the requirements under Rule 75 of Civil Rules of Practice is complied with. The Court below has taken into account Rules 75 and 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice and also the order passed by this Court in the case of G.Prakash Chand Jain Vs. Sri Sivasakthi Vinayagar Temple [CRP.No.1071 of 2016].

There is no absolute material before the Court below to substantiate that the petitioners/defendants took any such steps to get the certified copy of the documents. In view of the same, the Court below was not inclined to reopen the case for issuing summons to the Tahsildar. Atleast, if the petitioners had taken such steps and were not able to get the documents, there will be some ground for the Court below to issue summons to the Tahsildar to produce documents. In view of the same, the reasoning given by the Court below while dismissing the applications does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court. In the result, the orders passed by the Court below stand confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MP To

1. The Subordinate Judge at Madurantakam.

2. V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. mp CRP Nos. 6373 and 6376 of 2026 07-10-2026