CRP(MD)/2577/2026 of DR.N.VENKATESHKUMAR Vs RAVI BHARATHI on 18 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the orders dated passed in I.A.Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 2026 in O.S.No.97 of 2019on the file of the District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

2. IA.No.4 of 2026 is filed by the 1st respondent who is the 3rd party to the proceedings with a prayer to permit him to depose on behalf of his father who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.97 of 2019.

3. IA.No.5 of 2026 is filed by the 1st respondent seeking to reopen the plaintiff's evidence to mark documents.

4. IA.No.6 of 2026 is filed by the 1st respondent seeking leave to receive documents.

5. The petitioner is the defendant. The 1st respondent is the 3rd party. The 2nd respondent is the plaintiff. The 2nd respondent filed a suit in OS.No.97 of 2019 seeking for the relief of declaration and

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 permanent injunction. When suit was pending for argument, the 1st respondent who is the 3rd party filed three petitions seeking permission to adduce evidence on behalf of his father, to reopen the plaintiff's evidence and to receive additional documents marked along with the petition.

6. The petitioner states that after adducing both side evidence, the suit was posted for argument on 24.03.2026 itself. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent filed petitions on 20.04.2026 seeking to reopen, recall for adducing additional evidence on behalf of his father. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent had created some documents during the trial and filed those petitions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the 1st respondent who is the son of the plaintiff has no right to adduce evidence on behalf of his father. There is no provision available in the Evidence Act. Only a wife could depose on behalf of her husband. If the son wants to depose, he has to obtain a power of attorney and he further stated that after awaiting such a long time in order to create a new case, these petitions are filed and without appreciating the opposition made by the

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 petitioner, the trial Court permitted him to adduce evidence as additional evidence in the above suit, which is perverse and liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent states that the documents sought to be produced by the Ist respondent's side are only an order passed in IA.No.892 of 2022 in OS.No.1191 of 2022 and decretal order passed in the same petition. Further, the Ist respondent wants to mark the sale deed executed between Karutharasu and the 1st respondent on 15.05.2025 and also wants to produce patta and has enclosed the medical certificate document to show the health condition of his father.

9. The learned counsel for the Ist respondent further states that the 1st respondent is none other than the son, since his father is aged about 86 years and indisposed to depose evidence. However, the trial Court did not permit him to adduce evidence on behalf of the father, but permitted him to adduce evidence on the side of the plaintiff as additional evidence and also permit him to mark the additional documents sought to be marked and as the documents were received only recently, the 2nd respondent/plaintiff could not produce the same due to his old age and ill

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 health. Therefore, these petitions are filed and the trial Court after appreciating the contention of the 1st respondent, allowed him to be an additional witness, which does not warrants any interference and the order of the trial Courts needs to be confirmed.

10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. It is true that in the suit, both side evidence was closed as early as on 17.03.2026 and posted for arguments on 24.03.2026 and it was pending for quite a long time. The 1st respondent filed petitions to recall, reopen and to mark documents. The documents sought to be marked are the orders pronounced by the Court, registered documents, Patta and alsothe medical certificate about the ill-health of the 2nd respondent/plaintiff. The trial Court while allowing these petitions, has not granted any liberty to the petitioner to cross examine regarding the proof and relevancy of the documents. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court needs a certain modification.

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026

12. In view of the above, this Court giving liberty to the revision petitioner to cross examine the proposed witness regarding the admissibility and relevancy of the document during cross examination and further, the trial Court only allowed the petition with a cost of Rs.500/- which is not sufficient because the plaintiff kept quiet after receiving the certified copy of document. The order of the certified copy was passed even in the year 2022, but the 1ª respondent filed the document belatedly and due to his inaction there is a delay in passing judgment. Therefore, the 1ª respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. In the result, these civil revision petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

18.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 To The District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram.

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)Nos.2577 to 2579 of 2026 18.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 04:55:13 pm )