Madras High Court
CRP/6152/2026 of Sivalingam Vs S. Sundaram on 1 October 2026
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
and CMP No. 26628 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012065172026}
1. Sivalingam
S/o. Kaliyappa Gounder @ Ponnusamy
Gounder,
Old Door No.154,
New Door No.577,
Vattamalaipaalayam,
South Avinashipaalayam Village,
Tiruppur South Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
2. Saraswathi
W/o. Sivalingam,
Old Door No.154,
New Door No.577,
Vattamalaipaalayam,
South Avinashipaalayam Village,
Tiruppur South Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S. Sundaram
S/o. Subbaray Gounder,
Residing at Poondhottam,
Mettukaatuvalasu,
Valliyarasal Village,
Muthur,Kangeyam Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 27.07.2026 in IA No.7 of 2026 in OS No.197 of 2020 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Kingston Jerold
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.S.Swaminathan
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 challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 27.07.2026 in IA No.7 of 2026 in OS No.197 of 2020 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for examining further witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs as PW2 and PW3, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.197 of 2020 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the Sale Deed dated 11.01.1999 is null and void and non-est and further to declare that the suit property belongs to the 2nd plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 21.01.2011 and for a permanent injunction.
4. The suit was at the stage of examination of witnesses on the side of the defendant and DW1 was examined and at this stage, the present application in I.A.No.7 of 2026 was filed for examining two more witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs as PW2 and PW3.
5. The above application came to be filed on the side of the plaintiffs on the ground that the 1st plaintiff was suffering from illness and was not in a position to produce any further witness at the stage of examination of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs and thereafter, the present application was filed in order to strengthen the case of the plaintiffs by examining the witnesses to the Sale Deed dated 11.01.1999 and to establish the purpose for which such Sale Deed was executed.
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
6. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that there was absolutely no explanation on the side of the plaintiff as to why no steps were taken to examine PW2 and PW3 till the evidence of DW1 had commenced. Even insofar as the evidence on the side of the defendants is concerned, DW1 and DW2 had been examined and the case was at the stage of final arguments and at that stage, the present application was filed. The Court below found that there was absolutely no justification or compelling reason for entertaining such an application at the stage of final arguments.
7. The reasoning given by the Court below while dismissing the application does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. If the petitioners/plaintiffs were vigilant enough to conduct the case, PW2 and PW3 ought to have been examined at the earliest point of time. There was absolutely no reason as to why the plaintiff waited till the suit reached the stage of final hearing and at that stage, file an application for examining PW2 and PW3. If a litigant is not conducting the case vigilantly and sleeps over the right, the Court cannot, every time, condone the same by showing misplaced sympathy. A time has come where the civil proceedings must be completed within a reasonable time. Failing which, cases are being reopened at the stage of
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
final hearing and as a result, civil suits are kept pending for decades together. This attitude has to be stopped and for that, the Court must be strict when it comes to dealing with cases where the delay is unexplained. In the case in hand, there was absolutely no reason as to why the plaintiff waited to file the application at the stage of final hearing in the year 2026 to examine two witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs as PW2 and PW3.
8. This Court does not find any merits in this case and the order passed by the Court below is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
CRP No. 6152 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. CRP No. 6152 of 2026 01-10-2026