CRP(MD)/2444/2026 of S.SUBBAIAH Vs M. PERIYAKARUPPAN (DIED) on 7 September 2026

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 07.07.2026 made in I.A.No.358 of 2024 in O.S.No.72 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumayam. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.72 of 2006 against the respondent for permanent injunction. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's father and the 1st respondent are brothers and the second independent is the son of the first defendant and he said that the B schedule properties are a self occurred property and A scheduled properties are the partition which was effected between himself and the defendants father. During the cross examination of DW1, he made some questions with regard to the Document of sale deed dated 01.10.1990. He relied upon a judgment dated 01.10.1990 Geeta Avanam, P Vasavanna. Viva Sauna. Already it is marked. killer tejita avanam pivasa unneed Killer tejita avanam pivasa unneed. Since DW1 has concealed the

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 truth in the evidence, he is not able to mark the document and he wants to mark the same. Hence he filed a petition with reopened, recall and to permit the petitioner to mark the sale. But the trial court dismissed the same for the reaons that he filed the petition belatedly and only in order to drag on the proceeding. Against which, the present petition is filed. The petitioner further contended that the said document is an important document to conclude the case only he came to know that the said document was not marked, when he verified the cross examination of DW1 and request to permit him to mark the document. The respondent counsel also appeared and seriously contested the petition stating that already an order was passed in C.R.P(MD)No. 3 dated 12/3 CR by his court in CRP Dash Dash Dash on 27/2023. That the Doctor the UK should be concluded within six months from the date of order. After concluding the evidence, the matter was posted for argument for almost one year instead of arguing the case, unnecessarily, he filed the petitioner in order to drag on the matter. He further stated that on 28.04.2015 during cross-examination, he wa quetioned about 4 boundarie and also examined whether 0.12 acres of land is belonging to him or not. For which he admitted that his father became the owner

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 and they purchased the property. Further, he stated that the document sought to be marked as no way connected to the suit and only his intention is to drag on the matter and pray to dismiss the petition. Heard the learned counel for the petitinoer and the learned counel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. We perused the averment in the plant. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction. The main contention of the petitioner is that the defendants during his absence Try to obtain patta in his name in respect of A and B scheduled property. He filed a suit for not to issue patta in favour of respondent and he also further said that the respondents tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On perusal of the records the documents sought to be marked as in respect of property in S.No.161/1. But, no such survey number available in the A schedule or B schedule and there is no averment to show that he tried to interfere with his proper no such averment in the petitioner to prove his case through the document and the subject matter of the property is also not connected with the documents being marked. On perusal of the trial court order which clearly shows that the suit was filed by the petitioner on 22.06.2024 only for a permanent injunction the

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 plaintiff examined himself on 27.09.2012 after six years and mark document Ex.P1 to P38 and his evidence was closed. On the side of the defendant also examined on 20.11.2014 as PW1 and Ex.B2 to B30 also marked. But he was only cross examined after two years on 13/4/2016. When the matter was posted for further evidence, the said order obtained by this petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No....... in ....... dated .......... and thereafter on 12.07.2023, alone the petition was dismissed with the direction to conclude the suit proceedings within six months. Thereafter the evidence was closed on 30.04.2024 and it was posted for argument from 2024 to till he filed the petition. The trial court clearly held that the documents sought to be marked as no way connected with the suit and dismissed the petition. This court of the view that only this civil revision petition in order to drag on the proceedings. He relied upon a judgment reported in 2009 4 SCC 410. In para No.17 and 2022(2) Apex CJ has seen. Paras. The learned counel for the respondent also relied upon a judgement reported in 2017(4) CTC 321. It is true that Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C., enables

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 the court at any stage of the proceeding to recall any witness which has been examined and to clarify any such question if omitted to be asked and to mark document. But that should not be misused under the guise that to drag on the proceedings. In this case, even the revision petitioner is not in a position to answer the question repeatedly raised by the question on what purpose he want to mark the document there is no answer, which clearly shows that the petition sought to be marked is only to drag on the proceedings. Hence there is no merit. The petition is dismissed, however. It is directed that immediately the revision petitioner should argue the case. If he has not argued the case within a week from the date of order, the trial court is hereby directed to close his argument and to hear the respondent and pass orders accordingly. 07.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To

1. The III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 R.POORNIMA

, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.863 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.4797 of 2024

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )

C.R.P(MD)Nos.2444 to 2446 of 2026 07.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:28 pm )