Madras High Court
Subramani vs Pattaiya Alias Ranganathan on 4 November, 2025
CRP No.5358 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 5358 of 2025 and
CMP No.26917 of 2025
1. Subramani
S/o Pachayappa Pillai, Valathy Village,
Gingee Tk, Tiruvannamalai Dist. Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Pattaiya alias Ranganathan
S/o Rangasamy Pillai, Valathy Village,
Gingee Tk, Tiruvannamalai Dist.
2.S.Pachayappan
Tamil Manila Giril Thozhilathibargal
Munnettra Pothu Nalachangam Adnan
Manila Cheyalalar,
No. 37, Somavarakulath Theru,
Tiruvannamalai Town,
Tiruvannamalai Taluk and Dist.
3.Govindammal
W/o. Chinnasamy, Madurai Peramattur
Village, Arni Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dist.
1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:28 pm )
CRP No.5358 of 2025
4.Poongavanam
W/o. Pownan, Valathy Village,
Gingee Taluk, Tiruvannamalai Dist
5.Pavunambal
W/o. Krishnamoorthy, Ariyampettai,
Madurai Peramattur Kalambur Post,
Arani Taluk, Thiruvannamalai Dist.
6.Viswanathan
S/o. Arjunapillai, Punalappadi Village,
Velappadi Post, Arani taluk,
Respondent(s)
Thiruvannamalai Dist.
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 03.09.2025 made in IA No.
342 of 2025 in OS No. 161 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,
Gingee by allowing this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.Saravanan
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking certificate under 76 of Civil Rules of Practice.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.161 of 2008 for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendant in respect of agricultural property. The trial in the suit commenced as early as on 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:28 pm ) CRP No.5358 of 2025 15.03.2015. However, the petitioner belatedly filed an application seeking issuance of a certificate for getting certified copy of the revenue extracts with regard to the suit property, in the year 2025 and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner not even applied for issuance of certified copy of the documents from the concerned officials and hence, the present application is only an attempt to drag on the proceedings.
3. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present petition, the revenue documents for the subject properties stand in his name. For the purpose of getting certified copy of the revenue documents, in respect of the suit property, he filed an application seeking certificate from the court. As far as the revenue documents are concerned, the petitioner is entitled to get the certified copies of the documents from the Tahsildar, as a matter of right. The suit was filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction in the year 2008. Till date, the petitioner has not made any attempt to get the certified copy of the documents from the revenue officials for the past 17 years. When the trial was commenced in the year 2015 also, the petitioner failed to apply for certified copy of the documents and mark the same through his witness. Now, the suit is posted for argument. At this stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 76 of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking certificate from the court to enable him to get the certified copies of the documents. Even without certificate, the petitioner is entitled to the certified copies of the revenue 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:28 pm ) CRP No.5358 of 2025 documents stand in his name by applying before the competent authority. If the request of the petitioner is refused by the competent authority, he may apply for certificate from the court to compel the revenue officials to issue certified copies of the documents.
4. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not taken any steps to apply for certified copy of the documents. Pointing out the above facts, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by observing that it is only an attempt to drag on the suit proceedings and I do not find any reason to interfere the same.
5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04-11-2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No MST To The Additional District Munsif, Gingee.
4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:28 pm ) CRP No.5358 of 2025 S.SOUNTHAR J.
MST CRP No.5358 of 2025 04-11-2025 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2025 01:14:28 pm )