Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2404/2026 of N. Murugesan Vs G. Muralidharan on 31 August 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.08.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11794 of 2026
1.N. Murugesan
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. G. Muralidharan
... Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 13.08.2026 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2026 on the file of the Honourable District Munsif Court, Theni in R.L.T.O.P. No. 3 of 2025
and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner
: Mr.Kabilan
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026
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 13.08.2026 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2026 on the file of the Honourable District Munsif Court, Theni, in R.L.T.O.P. No. 3 of 2025.
2. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2026 seeking to reopen his evidence in the RLTOP proceedings for the purpose of adducing evidence. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Court-cum-District Munsif on 13.08.2026.
3. The petitioner intended to bring one witness named Venkadasamy, who is his electrician and plumber working in the building to prove the nature of building is in good condition and to appoint advocate commissioner along with the engineer to validate the condition of the building on 12/08/2025 and the same was dismissed on that day without hearing on merits and the respondent side evidence is also closed despite filing the proof affidavit of Venkadasamy who is the necessary party to hear upon the conditions of the building. Therefore, the present petition has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to reopen the respondent's side evidence to adduce further evidence. The same
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026 was also dismissed without going into the facts and circumstances of the case and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided. Hence this petition was filed.
4. The respondent herein seriously opposed the petition and contended that the present petition had been filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings. The Trial Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that the petitioner had already been afforded sufficient and fair opportunity to adduce evidence on 10.08.2026, 11.08.2026 and 12.08.2026. Instead of availing the said opportunity and adducing evidence, the petitioner had filed a petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was also dismissed. It was further contended by the respondent that the petitioner was deliberately preventing the Rent Court from disposing of the proceedings within the time stipulated under Section 36(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that the Rent Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the respondent, since the proceedings were initiated seeking arrears of rent and an order for demolition and reconstruction, the non-cooperation of the petitioner had prevented the Rent Court from completing the trial within the prescribed period.
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026
5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the matter was posted for the respondent's evidence on 11.08.2026. The respondent did not adduce evidence on the said date and, on the very next day, filed the present petition seeking to reopen the respondent's side evidence and to permit him to adduce further evidence.
6. It is well settled that, while conducting a trial, the Court has to adhere to the principles of natural justice and ensure that a fair and reasonable opportunity is afforded to the parties to present their respective cases. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, this Court passes the following order:
(i) In the interest of natural justice. This court is of the view to grant one final opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to adduce his evidence, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside.
(ii) The petitioner is directed to adduce his evidence on 09.09.2026. If the petitioner fails to adduce his evidence on or before 09.09.2026, he shall not be granted any further opportunity to adduce evidence.
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment thereafter on any ground. The learned Trial Court is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of one month from the date on which the petitioner adduces his evidence, without granting unnecessary adjournments.
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026
(iv) As a condition for granting the above indulgence, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent towards costs on or before 09.09.2026.
(v) The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns Note:Issue order copy on 08/09/2026 To
1. The District Munsif Court, Then.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026 R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.2404 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.11794 of 2026 31.08.2026