Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries ... vs Tmt.A.R.Lakshmi (Late) on 29 June, 2022
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.9859, 9818 and 9853 of 2022
M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries (Madras) Pvt.Ltd.,
Registered Office at 'Kumara Vijayam'
Flat No.A-1, No.99, Royapettah High Road,
Chennai- 600 014. ... Petitioner in all C.R.P's
..Vs..
Tmt.A.R.Lakshmi (Late)
1. Mr.R.Raghunandan
2. Tmt.Shanthi
3. Mr.R.Sudha Rathinam
4. Mr.R.Muthukrishnan
5. Mr.A.K.Muthuswamy
6. Mr.A.K.Shankar Prasad
7. Mrs.S.Krithika
8.Mr.S.Srinivasan
9.Mr.A.R.Rajagopalan
10.Mrs.N.Kalavathy
11.Mr.A.R.Santhanakrishnan
12. Mrs.RadhikaSanthanakrishnan
13.Mr.Ajith S.Ranganathan
14.Mr.A.Shankaranarayanan
15.A.R.Chandrika
16.Mr.S.Ananth
17.Mrs.ArunaRajan
18.Mr.R.Muthukrishnan
19.Mr.S.Sriram
20.Mr.S.Sridhar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
21.Mrs.A.Kameshwari
22.M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited,
Represented by its Director Mr.S.Vasudevan
Branch Office at 63, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ... Respondents in all
C.R.Ps.
PRAYER in C.R.P.(PD).No.1946 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.03.2022,
passed in I.A.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.1853 of 2013, by the Hon'ble XVIII
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and dismiss the same.
PRAYER in C.R.P.(PD).No.1932 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.03.2022,
passed in I.A.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.1853 of 2013, by the Hon'ble XVIII
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and dismiss the same.
PRAYER in C.R.P.(PD).No.1943 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.03.2022,
passed in I.A.No.7 of 2021 in O.S.No.1853 of 2013, by the Hon'ble XVIII
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and dismiss the same.
For Petitioner
(in all C.R.Ps). : Mr.Kuberan
for M/s.Rank Associates
For R2 : Mr.P.Venkataseshan
(in all CRP's)
: Mr.R.Raghunanthan/Second
Respondent
Party-in-Person
Claimed himself to be Power Agent of
R3 to R5.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred challenging the orders of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 28.03.2022 made in I.A.Nos.6, 7 and 8 of 2021.
2.The Revision Petitioner is the 1st Defendant in the suit filed by the deceased 1st Plaintiff along with the 2nd Plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd Plaintiff for himself and as Power Agent for the Plaintiffs 3 to 5 filed petitions to reopen, recall and implead the proposed respondents 20 to 22 in I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2021 as parties to the suit. The said petitions were dismissed. During the dismissal of the said Petitions, the learned Trial Judge has made an observation that instead of impleding the proposed respondents 20 to 22 as parties, they can be summoned and examined as witnesses. Consequent to the said order, the 2nd Plaintiff once again filed the petitions in I.A.Nos.6,7 and 8 of 2021 to reopen, recall and summon the Government witnesses for the purpose of examining them as witnesses on his side. The said petitions were allowed. Aggrieved over the said order, the Petitioner/2nd Defendant has preferred the Civil Revision Petitions.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the suit 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022 itself is frivolous and it has been filed for claiming right over the property which had been sold by the 1st Defendant Company, where the deceased 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Plaintiff were the share holders of the first defendant Company; having sold the property on behalf of the Company, the Plaintiffs have come forward with the suit by claiming false right over the same property; just because the learned Trial Judge has made an observation that Government witnesses can be summoned, they need not be summoned when it is not necessary.
4. Despite the 2nd Respondent appeared through the counsel he did not allow his counsel to make his arguments. In fact, he claimed himself as Power Agents for Respondents 3 to 5 and stated that he has a genuine case; the authorities continued to register the documents in respect of suit properties despite his objections; in order to prove the above said facts, the Government witnesses should be summoned.
5. Admittedly, the Government witnesses sought to be summoned are not parties to the proceedings. The Petition filed to implead them was already dismissed on the finding that they are not necessary parties. This would only imply that the matter in issue is between the private parties who are the Plaintiffs and defendants in the suit.
4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
6. The core contention of the 2nd Respondent is that he intends to summon the Government witnesses just to elicit before this Court that they allowed to continue the illegal registration of the properties in the names of various persons.
7. The facts intended to be proved by the 2nd Respondent/Plaintiff can be proved by way of producing documentary evidence. Summoning the Government Witnesses and their oral evidence would not in any way superior than the documents which should be filed to substantiate the facts pleaded by the 2nd respondent. Just because the learned Trial Judge made a passing remark that the 2nd Plaintiff can summon the Government Witnesses, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to call the witnesses, even when it is found not necessary. Since, the matter in issue does not require any oral evidence of the Government witnesses and the production of documents are difficult to prove the transaction, I feel the orders of the learned Trial Judge deserve to be reversed. However, the legality or illegality of the transactions cannot be presumed by mere production of the documents and the said facts should be proved by substantiating the facts pleaded by the 2nd Respondent.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the order 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022 of the learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 28.03.2022 made in I.A.Nos.6,7 and 8 of 2021 in O.S.No.1853 of 2013, is hereby set aside. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
29.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
arr
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022
To
1. The XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.N.MANJULA, J., 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD) Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022 arr C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1946, 1932 and 1943 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.9859, 9818 and 9853 of 2022 29.06.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis