VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

N.Mahesh Kumar v. Manju Latha Jain

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
19 August 2026
Bench
N. Anand Venkateshauthor
Case no.
CRP 4906/2026

Judgment

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Civil Revision Petition Nos.4906 & 5079 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.22197 of 2026

¶1N.Mahesh Kumar S/o. Nataraj

¶2N.Sivagirinathan S/o.Nataraj

¶3N.Rukmani W/o.Nataraj ..Petitioners in both revisions Vs

¶1Manju Latha Jain W/o.Shri Jinendra Mahaveer Jain

¶2Jinendra Kumar Jain S/o.Shri Mahaveer Chand Plawar represented by its Power agent Suresh Chand Sutaliya S/o.Bhawaralal Sutaliya

¶3The Tahsildar, Perur, Coimbatore 641 010.

¶4The District Collector, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Respondents in both revisions Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order and final order dated 24.03.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.6 & 5 of 2026 in O.S.No.1093 of 2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Page2 of 4 For Petitioners : [in both revisions] Mr.K.Sudhakar For Respondents : [in both revisions] Mrs.S.Yogalakshmi Additional Government Pleader [R3 & R4] ***** COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions have been filed against the orders dated

24.03.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.6 & 5 of 2026 in O.S.No.1093 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, wherein the applications filed by respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs to reopen and recall PW-1 for filing additional documents, came to be allowed by the Court below.

¶2Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondent 3 and 4 and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned orders.

¶3The respondents 1 & 2 are plaintiffs in the suit filed in O.S.No.1093 of 2020 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was at the stage of trial and PW-1 was on the box and the petitioners were supposed to cross-examine PW-1. At that stage, the applications came to be filed in I.A.Nos.6 & 5 of 2026 in O.S.No.1093 of 2020 to reopen and recall PW-1 on the ground that certain additional documents will have to be marked. Page3 of 4 These applications came to be allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed.

¶4The main ground urged by learned counsel for petitioners is that there was absolutely no reason assigned in the affidavits filed in support of the applications as to why additional documents were not able to be marked at the time of cross-examining PW-1 and as to why it took more than 6 years to file those documents.

¶5In the considered view of this court, the Court below has exercised its discretion by considering the fact that the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1. Even if the evidence of PW-1 is reopened and recalled for the purpose of filing additional documents, if there is any objection in marking the documents, the same can be raised by the petitioners at the time of marking the documents. Even if the documents are marked, the petitioners have a valuable right of cross-examining PW-1 including putting questions pertaining to additional documents. Hence, no prejudice is going to be caused for the petitioners by recalling PW-1 for marking additional documents.

¶6The order passed by the Court below does not suffer any perversity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Page4 of 4

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm

¶7It is made clear that if the petitioners have any objection regarding the additional documents that are sought to be marked, the petitioners can raise their objections at the time of marking the documents. It goes without saying that the petitioners will also have a valuable right of cross-examining PW-1. In the light of the above discussion, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gm To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. Civil Revision Petition Nos.4906 & 5079 of 2026

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.