CRP/4428/2026 of Saraswathy Vs Kaliyaperumal on 25 August 2026

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.N.S.Thanvi and Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the first respondent. Further notice to the respondents 2 to 4 are dispensed with, since they are only formal parties to the revision petition.

2. Ms.Thanvi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would bring to my notice that the petitioner has filed an Application for obstruction of the execution of the decree, unfortunately, the Executing Court has directed listing of the removal of obstruction petition along with an application for adducing evidence filed by the first respondent/decree holder. In the said application, the petitioner intended to mark documents by filing E.A. No.25 of 2026, the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry, has directed the said Interlocutory Application in E.A. No.25 of 2026, to be posted along with the removal of obstruction petition in E.A. No.262 of 2021 and has in fact, reserved orders in the matter. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the petitioner is able to lead evidence on the documents sought to be produced, reserving orders in the said application to be taken up along with removal of obstruction petition would only cause serious prejudice and injustice to the judgment debtor.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr.Sreedhar would bring to my notice that similar attempt was made by the petitioner by filing E.A. No.16 of 2025 and the said application was dismissed. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was an application only to issue subpoena of summons to witnesses proposed to be examined on the side of the petitioner. Admittedly, the said adverse orders in favour of the revision petitioner, has become final, with the petitioner not opting to challenge the said order.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to mark the documents and lead evidence relating to such documents and after giving an opportunity to the respondents, the first respondent to cross examine the petitioner/judgment debtor on such additional documents, the learned Principal District Judge, will not be in a position to appreciate the stand of the revision petitioner, in the counter statement filed for removal of obstruction petition.

5. In the light of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Principal District Judge, ought not to have reserved orders in the application to adduce additional evidence, especially when documentary evidence is sought to be adduced. In fact, I also find that the documents which are sought to be produced are only certified copies of Encumbrance Certificate and CMA orders/judgments passed by the Competent Courts.

6. In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the revision in the following manner:-

(i) E.A. No.25 of 2026, shall be taken up on a priority basis and the petitioner shall be permitted to mark only the certified copies of the documents that have been annexed to the application filed in E.A. No.25 of 2026. The said

P.B.BALAJI, J. exercise shall be completed within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order copy or production of the order copy before the learned District Judge.

(ii) Two (2) weeks further time shall be granted to the respondent/decree holder to cross examine the petitioner with regard to the additional documents. Thereafter, the learned Principal District Judge shall consider the additional documents while disposing the application for removal of obstruction which shall be decided within a period of 30 days thereafter.

7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

25.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Principal District Judge, Puducherry. CRP. No.4428 of 2026 and CMP. No.19522 of 2026