Madras High Court
CRP/6125/2026 of R.R.Vasudevan Vs River View Colony LIG Plot on 5 October 2026
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011959002026}
1. R.R.Vasudevan
S/o. Late R.N.Ramachandran,
Res. at 14, 4th Cross Street Extension,
Jeyendra Nagar,
Sembakkam,
Chennai-73.
2. R.R.Kandaswamy
S/o. Late R.N.Ramachandran,
Res. at 14, 4th Cross Street Extension,
Jeyendra Nagar,
Sembakkam,
Chennai-73.
3. R.R.Sivaparakasham
S/o. Late R.N.Ramachandran,
Res. at 14, 4th Cross Street Extension,
Jeyendra Nagar,
Sembakkam,
Chennai-73.
Rep. by his Power Agent R.R.Kandaswamy
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. River View Colony LIG Plot
Owners Welfare Association,
Rep. by its Secretary,
River View Colony,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai-40.
2. Tamil Nadu State Housing Board
Nandanam,
Chennai-35
..Respondent(s)
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
Civil Revision Peittion filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Partial dismissal order passed in IA No. 6 of 2026 in OS
No. 6000 of 2024 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court Chennai,dated 01.07.2026 allow this CRP.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.S.Ramesh
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 fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2026 in O.S.No.6000 of 2024 on the file of the XXIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 01.07.2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to let in secondary evidence of certain documents, came to be partly allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in O.S.No.6000 of 2024 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9597 of 1996 dated 27.02.2004 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction. The suit was at the
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
stage of trial. At that stage, the petitioners wanted to let in secondary evidence of certain documents. Accordingly, I.A.No.6 of 2026 was filed before the Court below.
4. The Court below allowed the application partly but rejected the application insofar as the production of certified copies of the sale deed and settlement deed. Aggrieved by that portion of the order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The crux of the issue that is involved in the present Civil Revision Petition pertains to the request made by the petitioners to let in secondary evidence, which is the certified copies of sale deed and settlement deed. Even though no reason has been assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application as to why they want to rely upon the certified copies of these documents, a memo was filed before the Court below stating that the original documents were in possession of the plaintiffs, who were residing in the United States. However, the Court below refused to rely upon the said memo and rejected the application with respect to those two documents.
6. In the considered view of this Court, when it comes to letting in secondary evidence, what must be seen by the Court is whether the party has laid the basis for letting in secondary evidence. The Apex Court has held that it
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
will not even be necessary to file an application for letting in secondary evidence if the party has already laid a foundation for letting in secondary evidence. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court [Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram (deceased) through legal heirs and others] reported in 2021 1 law weekly 228. Useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in [M.Premkumari Vs. A. Krishnaraj and others] reported in 2021 2 Law weekly 116.
7. In the case in hand, the foundation for letting in secondary evidence of the sale deed and settlement deed and to file the certified copies of the same has been laid by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no need for the Court below to reject an application and the Court below could have acted upon the memo more particularly, since the respondents/defendants are not even contesting this application. In view of the above, the order passed by the Court below insofar as rejecting the application with respect to marking certified copy of the sale deed and settlement deed as secondary evidence, is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.6 of 2026 will stand allowed in toto. It goes without saying that these documents at time of marking will be subject to relevancy, proof and admissibility. It shall be independently considered by the Court below.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
8. In result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The XXIII Assistant City Civil Court Chennai
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 6125 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6125 of 2026 05-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )