Madras High Court
Santha Kumari vs R.Krishnaveni on 9 June, 2015
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.2000 of 2013 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013 1.Santha Kumari 2.S.Ramasubbu 3.S.Muralidharan ... Petitioners Vs. R.Krishnaveni ...Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree made in I.A.No.166 of 2013 in O.S.No.62 of 2004 dated 12 September 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sattur. !For Petitioners : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu ^For Respondent : Mr.V.Venkattasamy M/s.J.Lawrance :ORDER
The suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.62 of 2004 was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondent filed first appeal. The first appeal was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi in A.S.No.28 of 2006. The second appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed by judgment and decree dated 27 January 2012. This Court remitted the matter to the trial Court with certain directions.
2.Before the trial Court, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.166 of 2013 to reopen the matter for the purpose of producing a document. The application was allowed by the trial Court. The said order is under challenge in the revision.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4.The respondent wanted the matter to be reopened for the purpose of marking a document. The respondent is yet to produce the document before the trial Court. The petitioners cannot be heard to say that the appellate Judge was not correct in reopening the matter. It is always open to the petitioners to oppose the prayer to mark the document, in case, the respondent is filing application to receive the document. By reopening the matter, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners especially on account of the direction given by this Court. I am therefore of the view that no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, I make it clear that the entire matter would be at large before the learned trial Judge and the objection raised by the petitioners herein should be considered while receiving the document in evidence.
4.The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 is closed.
To
1.The District Munsif, Sattur.