Madras High Court
CRP/6396/2026 of Thangam Alias Desigan Vs Rajamanickam on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6396 of 2026
& CMP.No.27535 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012285282026}
Thangam (a) Desigan
S/o. Shanmugam,
No.76/30-B, Periyar Nagar,
Old Suramangalam,
Salem-5.
...Petitioner
Vs
Rajamanickam
S/o. M.Iyyandurai,
No.2/49, KAS Nagar,
Sarkar Kollapatty,
Salem-30.
...Respondent
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 01.8.2026 passed in
I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.619 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioner:
Mr.K.Anbarasan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 01.8.2026 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.619 of 2011 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for summoning the official witnesses to produce certain documents came to be dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the said suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the said application seeking to issue summons to the Authorities for production of certain documents in order to establish that the petitioner/defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. But, the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that it was filed only to drag on the proceedings and that there was no requirement to issue summons to the Authorities to produce documents, which could as well be marked on the side of the petitioner/defendant. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity. If the petitioner wants to establish his possession over the suit property, it is well open to him to file relevant documents before the Court below and his evidence must be in line with the stand taken in the written statement filed already. The petitioner/defendant cannot expect the summons to be issued to an Authority, who will be asked to produce certain documents in order to prove the possession of the petitioner/defendant. Such far-fetched reliefs cannot be granted by Courts and the Court below rightly dismissed the said application and it does not warrant the interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 07-10-2026 To The Second Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6396 of 2026& CMP.No.27535 of 2026 07-10-2026