IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.03.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD)No.1046 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.5069 of 2017
1. S.Thamaraiselvi
2. Venkatesan Elumalai ... Petitioners v.
E.Bharani ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.11336 of 2016 in O.S.No.3826 of 2013 dated 3.2.2017 on the file of the Learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Natarajan O R D E R Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.11336 of 2016 in O.S.No.3826 of 2013 on the file of the Learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3826 of 2013 for partition.
The defendants filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. When the suit was taken up for trial, the defendants took out an application in I.A.No.11336 of 2016 to issue summons to the Manager, Central Board of Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Mumbai to appear and give evidence along with documents pertaining to P.Ellappan, Films Editor, Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Mumbai, who is the husband of the respondent.
3. The respondent/plaintiff while deposing evidence, marked Ex.A4 - Release Deed dated 27.08.2009 executed by her sisters and brothers and in the said Release Deed, the respondent/plaintiff had stated that she paid Rs.15,00,000/- as consideration to her sisters and brothers obtained from her husband P.Ellappan.
4. In order to disprove the contention of the plaintiff, the defendants sought to summon the Manager, Central Board of Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Mumbai to appear and give evidence along with documents pertaining to said P.Ellappan, for the year 2009 and 2010.
5. The Trial Court taking into consideration, the case of both the parties, dismissed the petition finding that while the defendants were examined as DW1 and DW2, they categorically admitted in cross- examination that the plaintiff is entitled to 4/6th share in the suit property. The Trial Court also observed that the defendants have made an attempt to collect evidence with regard to the plaintiff's husband employment and his income, which are not relevant to the disputes involved in the suit.
6. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7. Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that liberty may be given to the defendants to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court for summoning the plaintiff's husband to give evidence before the Trial Court. It is open to the defendants to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court for summoning the plaintiff's husband, before the Trial Court for giving
M.DURAISWAMY,J.,
gsa/gms evidence. If such an application is being filed, the Trial Court shall decide the same on merits and in accordance with the law.
22.03.2017
Index : Yes/No gsa/gms NOTE TO OFFICE: Issue order copy by 24.03.2017 To The XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(PD)No.1046 of 2017 C.M.P.No.5069 of 2017
22.03.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in