CRP(MD)/2471/2026 of Thangam Vs Thangarathinam on 8 September 2026

1. Thangarathinam 2,Selvam : Respondents 1 and 2/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs Ramasamy Nadar (Died) : 1st Defendant Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the fair and decreetal order, datged 29/07/2026 passed in IA Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 2026 in OS No.503 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh OR D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order, dated 29/07/2026, passed in I.A.Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 2026 in O.S.No.503 of 2022 by the learned District Munsif, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.

CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the second defendant in the suit. The suit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the deceased Ramasamy Nadar, who was arrayed as the first defendant. The petitioner, who is the second defendant, has also filed a counter-claim, which is pending consideration.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the side of the plaintiffs, PW1 was examined on 04/12/2024 and through him, Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Thereafter, the matter was posted to 03/02/2025 for adducing further evidence. However, the plaintiffs were not present and did not take any steps either to adduce further evidence or to mark any further documents on their side. Therefore, the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was closed. Subsequently, the evidence on the side of the defendants was also completed. When the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs filed petitions seeking to reopen the evidence, recall PW1 and permit them to mark a document on their side.

CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiffs had not stated any sufficient or acceptable reason for not producing and marking the document at the time of their examination. Therefore, it was contended that the petitions had been filed only to fill up the lacuna on their case. It was further contended that the document sought to be marked is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed and that the same cannot be admitted in evidence in accordance with law. Hence, it was contended that the petitions seeking to reopen the evidence, recall PW1 and mark the document on the side of the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed. But the learned Trial Court found that the document sought to be marked had already been annexed along with the plaint. The Trial Court also found that an issue had already been framed with regard to the said document. The Trial Court further held that the questions relating to deficit stamp duty and registration of the document could be decided in accordance with law. The defendants were also granted liberty to raise all permissible objections with regard to the execution, genuineness, validity, stamp duty, registration and admissibility of the document. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Court finds that the document dated 03/03/1996, which is sought to be marked, is an unregistered partition deed and that the same had already been annexed along with the plaint at the earliest stage. The Trial Court has also noted that an issue has already been framed with regard to the said document and that the document has a bearing on the adjudication of the suit.

7. In the present case, the plaintiffs have clearly stated that, though the document had already been annexed along with the plaint, they had failed to mark the same during the examination of PW1 and, therefore, sought permission to mark the said document. The Trial Court has rightly taken note of the fact that the document is not a newly introduced document and that it had already been filed along with the plaint.

8. Since the document had already been filed along with the plaint, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by permitting the plaintiffs to mark the same, particularly when the Trial Court has granted liberty to

CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026 the petitioner to raise all permissible objections with regard to the execution, genuineness, validity, stamp duty, registration and admissibility of the document.

9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference by this Court. Hence, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08-09-2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026 R.POORNIMA.,J er To,

1. The District Munsif Court, Alangulam, Tenkasi District.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRP(MD)No.2471 of 2026 08/09/2026