CRP/4958/2026 of C.Shanmugam Vs R.Govindasamy on 5 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.76 of 2026 in O.S.No.290 of 2021 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to file additional documents came to be partly allowed by the Court below while rejecting the application insofar as the Will dated 29.01.2007.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.290 of 2021 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the petitioner/plaintiff has a right of usage of the subject pathway and for permanent injunction. The suit was at the stage of trial and the petitioner/plaintiff had examined one Natarajan as a witness. This witness had spoken about the right over the same pathway by virtue of a Will dated 29.01.2007 which is said to have been executed in his favour by his father. In view of the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.76 of 2026 in O.S.No.290 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 14 (3A) CPC to file three additional documents. The first document is the Will dated 29.01.2007, the second document is the patta standing in the name of Natarajan and the third document is the Aadhar Card. The Court below partly allowed the application and rejected it insofar as filing the Will dated 29.01.2007 as an additional document. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Will that was spoken to by the witness contains specific recitals relating to the subject cart track and it is the direct issue in the present suit. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have rejected the application at the threshold and it goes without saying that the Will will be marked subject to the procedure prescribed under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the Will was executed in favour of Natarajan by his father and insofar as he is concerned, he is a third party to the present suit and the petitioner/plaintiff is a third party insofar as the Will is concerned. Therefore, the Court below proceeded to reject the application insofar as this document is concerned.

6. The real objection regarding the admissibility of the Will will arise only if the Will is sought to be marked as a document. In such a scenario, the special procedure contemplated under the Indian Evidence Act, (BSA, 2023)

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm/aj will have to be necessarily satisfied by examining the attesting witnesses. Since that stage has not been reached, the Court below need not have dismissed the application. In any event, even if the Will is marked, the Court will always go into the issue of its relevancy while dealing with the suit on merits. Therefore, whatever objections are raised by respondents/defendants in this regard will be taken into consideration if the Court ultimately relies upon the Will and while disposing of the suit finally. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.76 of 2026 in O.S.No.290 of 2021 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the Additional District Munsif, Tiruppur, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.290 of 2021 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/aj To The Additional District Munsif, Tiruppur. Civil Revision Petition No.4958 of 2026