Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2127 (MAD)

Valliammal v. B. Santhi

2013-06-21

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The present civil revision petition is filed against the order made in E.A.No.3308 of 2012 in E.A.No.2500 of 2012 in E.P.No.1784 of 2009 on the file of X Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner who is the decree holder filed the said E.P. wherein delivery was ordered and he was also put in possession by the Executing Court on 25.06.2012. After such delivery of the suit property to the petitioner, one third party to the proceedings by name Santhi, who is the respondent herein, filed E.A.No.2500 of 2012 seeking for redelivery of the property by filing application under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C. In the said E.A., the petitioner herein as the respondent had already filed counter affidavit. When the said application is pending, the respondent herein further filed an application in E.A.No.3308 of 2012 for receiving additional documents. The court below has allowed the application by an order dated 13.09.2012, by holding that the documents sought to be produced as additional documents are relevant for deciding the issue in the main application. The court below has also found that there was no representation for the respondent therein/petitioner herein. Accordingly, the said application was allowed by the court below and the documents were received subject to proof and relevancy. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the court below without even granting time to the petitioner to file counter in the said application is not proper and consequently, the order has to be set aside. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the court below shows that when the matter was taken up on 13.09.2012, there was no representation for the respondent therein/petitioner herein. However, the court below has allowed the application by perusing the counter filed by the petitioner in the main E.A No.2500 of 2012. In any event, the documents were received by the court below subject to proof and relevancy. Certainly, the petitioner herein as the respondent in E.A.No.2500 of 2012, has got every right and liberty to challenge those documents either by cross-examination or by adducing further evidence in the said application. 5. In any event, the documents were received by the court below subject to proof and relevancy. Certainly, the petitioner herein as the respondent in E.A.No.2500 of 2012, has got every right and liberty to challenge those documents either by cross-examination or by adducing further evidence in the said application. 5. Therefore, when the fact remains that the documents have been received as additional documents that too, subject to proof and relevancy, the petitioner cannot have any grievance especially when the main E.A. No.2500/2012 in which those documents being filed is still pending, wherein the petitioner had filed counter affidavit. It is for the court below to consider E.A.No.2500 of 2012 and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, I find no merits in the civil revision petition. As the said E.A.No.2500 of 2012 is still pending, the court below is directed to dispose of the said application without loss of any further time within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.