Saetu vs B.Thirulochana Kumari
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.1778 of 2026
& CMP.No.8073 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010503532026}
Saetu, S/o.Durai,
Old No.29, New No.30,
Navalar Street,
Rani Anna Nagar,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai 600 106
...Petitioner
Vs
1. B.Thirulochana Kumari
D/o.A.K.Balakrishna Pillai,
No.12, Convent Street,
Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai 600 030
A.K.Balakrishna Pillai (deceased)
B.Janarthanan (deceased)
2. The Official Assignee
Madras High Court,
Chennai 104.
...Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the order dated 06.1.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
th
A.S.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the 17 Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Sundaresan for
Ms.S.Vaitheeswari
For Respondents: Mr.Ananthakrishnan for
Mr.Ra.Senthur Murugan for R1
Mr.C.Ramesh for R2
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
The Constitution of India against the order dated 06.1.2026 passed
th
in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on the file of the 17
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai (for short, the Court
below) wherein the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff
to receive additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC) came to be allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
respondents.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available
on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The first respondent/plaintiff, along with two others, filed
th
O.S.No.1784 of 2016 on the file of the 11 Assistant Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioner/defendant seeking for the
relief of mandatory injunction directing him to hand over possession
of the suit properties. However, the said suit came to be dismissed
by judgment and decree dated 18.4.2024.
5. Aggrieved by that, the first respondent/plaintiff filed
A.S.No.281 of 2024 before the Court below. The arguments were
heard in the said appeal and the Court below also reserved
judgment. At that stage, the first respondent/plaintiff also filed the
said application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to receive six
additional documents. However, the Court below suo motu reopened
the appeal by order dated 06.1.2026 and on the very same day,
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
allowed the said application by the impugned order. As against it,
the petitioner/defendant filed the above revision before this Court.
6. For proper appreciation, the proceedings dated 06.1.2026
in the main appeal is extracted as hereunder:
“ The appellant filed this appeal to set
aside the decree and judgment passed in
O.S.No.1784/2016. On perusal of records it
shows that one Tr.Munirathinam Naidu was
adjudged as an insolvent and the properties held
by him were ordered to be sold to the occupants
of the same by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras.
The Official Assignee of High Court, Madras was
assigned with the job of issuing demand notice,
to receive the sale consideration fixed and for
execution of sale deeds pertaining to the
property of the said Tr.Munirathinam Naidu. The
records show that the Door No.30 consist of an
extent of 483 sq.ft., in serial No.56 of the
proceedings of the official assignee was allotted
to one Tr.N.Durai and similarly in Serial No.136
the Door No.30A consist of 375 sq.ft.. was
allotted to one Tmt.Rajeswari. The appellants
claiming right as a legal heirs of Tmt.Rajeshwari
and the respondents claim right as legal heirs of
Tr.Durai, The appellants contend that 300 sq.ft.,
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
in Door No.30A was encroached by the
respondents and therefore they sought for
mandatory injunction. But there are two Door
Nos. and both of them are situated adjacent to
each other. In the trial court there was no
Advocate Commissioner appointed to measure
the extent of the properties held by both parties
in the above said Door Nos. namely Door No.30
and 30A. This court is of the opinion if the extent
of land now possessed by the parties are known
it will be convenient for the court to arrive a just
decision. Therefore the appeal suit posted for
orders today is suo motto reopened and both
parties are directed to clarify the court as to the
extent of land now being possessed and enjoyed
by them. For clarification call on 21.01.2026.
IA-1/25 - Orders pronounced. In the result this
petition is allowed. ”
7. The said application was filed by the first respondent/
plaintiff in order to establish that the Trial Court had given a wrong
finding regarding the door number and hence, she wanted the Court
below to receive certain additional documents as additional evidence
to substantiate that the door number would be 30 that was assigned
even as per the report of the Official Assignee.
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
8. In the above proceedings in the main appeal, the Court
below, on 06.1.2026, found that door No.30 consisted of an extent
of 483 sq.ft. in Serial No.56 of the proceedings of the Official
Assignee and it was allotted in favour of one Mr.N.Durai and in
Serial No.136, door No.30A consisted of 375 sq.ft., which was
allotted to one Mrs.Rajeswari. The first respondent/plaintiff was
claiming the right as the legal heir of the said Mrs.Rajeswari and the
petitioner/defendant was claiming their right as the legal heir of the
said Mr.N.Durai.
9. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, an extent of 300
sq.ft. in door No.30A was encroached by the petitioner/defendant
and therefore, she sought for mandatory injunction by filing the said
suit.
10. The Court below wanted to bring in those documents as
additional evidence to understand the scope of door Nos.30 and 30A
and the Court below was in the process of appointing an advocate
commissioner to note down the physical features in order to
effectively dispose of the said appeal.
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
11. The Appellate Court has wider powers under Order XLI
Rule 27 of the CPC to take in additional evidence. Considering the
nature of dispute that is involved in this case, the Court below
thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction. Ultimately, if the additional
documents are sought to be brought in and the Court below also
wants to appoint an advocate commissioner, those documents will
have to be marked through a witness and the petitioner/ defendant
must get an opportunity to cross examine the witness and/or make
their submissions regarding the report, if any, submitted by the
advocate commissioner. The Court below cannot, straight away, act
upon the documents based on the report of the advocate
commissioner without giving an opportunity to the
petitioner/defendant. If this is clarified, the grievance expressed by
the petitioner/defendant will be sufficiently taken care of.
12. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil
revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated
06.1.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on the
th
file of the 17 Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is
sustained. The Court below is directed to proceed further to record
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
additional evidence in the light of the observations made supra and
dispose of the main appeal in A.S.No.281 of 2024 on its own merits
and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the
connected CMP is also dismissed.
02-11-2026
To
The Registrar,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
RS
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )
CRP.No.1778 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.1778 of 2026&
CMP.No.8073 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 11:36:55 am )