Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/768/2025 of Dr.C.Manimaran Vs R.Baskaran on 1 October 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 768 of 2025
{CNR: HCMD010296142025}
Case QR
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4092 of 2025
Dr.C.Manimaran
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Baskaran
2.R.Krishnan
3.R.Chandrasekaran
4.R.Sivakumar
5.Kalaiselvi
Santha (died)
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order dated 21-11-2024 made in EA.No.5 of 2021 in EA.No.150
of 2014 in EP.No.54 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai and
quash the same and consequently allow the present Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner
: Mr.J.Anandkumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathya Chidambaram – for R1 to R5
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 is filed against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in EA.No.5 of 2021 in EA.No.150 of 2014 in EP.No.54 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit for the relief of specific performance in OS.No.76 of 2010 and the same was decreed on 01.04.2011. Against which an appeal was also filed in AS.No.20 of 2011 and the appeal was also dismissed on 16.03.2012. Against which, second appeal was filed in SA(MD)No.824 of 2012 and the second appeal was dismissed on 21.06.2018. The petitioner filed EP for execution of sale deed in EP.No.54 of 2011 and the sale deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner has filed EP for delivery of possession, the respondents have filed a petition in EA.No.5 of 2021 to recall the witness and cross examined the Petitioner. Thereafter, once again filed the above petition to reopen and recall the petitioner to ascertain the market value of the property in the year 2006 when the sale agreement was entered between the parties and also to ascertain the market value of the property in the year 2014 when it was sold and sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. However, there is a clerical mistake in the agreement and in this regard, they want to cross examine the witness.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that first of all, the petition is not at all maintainable at this stage, as already the trial Court considering all the above facts, passed an order even in the year 2010 and the appeal as well as the second appeal filed against judgment and decree of the suit was also dismissed as against the respondents. Now after considering the Amin's report, the present sale deed has been executed, if at all they have any grievance, it is their duty to obtain the value from the Sub Registrar office and they need not to cross examine the petitioner at this belated stage. Without considering the above, the trial Court allowed the petition, which is ought to be set aside.
4. The respondents are also present and stated that any party to the suit or EP proceedings have every right to recall the evidence in order to ascertain the real truth and it is the duty of the Court to provide fair opportunity to bring out the truth on record.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In this case, it is true that the petition was filed in a belated stage to ascertain the market value of the property from the revision petitioner. They cannot ascertain from the petitioner and he is not a person to answer such questions. However, all the questions relating to the value of the property has already been ascertained and the sale deed has also been executed in favor of the petitioner and once again, there is no use for the respondents to cross examine the petitioner on the same aspect. Further, the respondents stated that there is a need to cross examine with regard to the date in the sale deed.
7. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has already been cross examined in that aspect and the Court also rectified the correction which is a typographical mistake and therefore, he need not be cross examined. The reasons stated for recall are not at all well reasoned and it shows that only in order to drag on the proceedings, the petition was filed by the respondents. Without considering the above, the trial Court mechanically allowed the petition which is ought to be set aside. Hence the order passed by the trial Court is hereby liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in EA.No.5 of 2021 in EA.No.150 of 2014 in EP.No.54 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.10.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM Copy To
1. The Sub Court, Devakottai.
R. POORNIMA,
J.
RM C.R.P(MD)No.768 of 2025 01.10.2026