C.R..P.(MD).Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P(MD)Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 and CMP (MD) No.12418 of 2025 D.Benet Antony Raj ... Petitioner (in all CRPs) Vs. 1. M.Gunasekaran 2. G.Rajkumar 3. G.Abhinaya 4. G.Vignesh 5. P.Indirakumari ... Respondents (in all CRPs) COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.06.2025 made in IA Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur and allow this Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sridharan (in all CRPs) 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(MD).Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 05.06.2025 made in IA Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur and allow these Civil Revision Petitions. 2. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Keeranur. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. In the course of the proceedings, the revision petitioner filed IA Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2025, seeking to re-open, to re-call D.W1 for marking additional document and to receive the additional document. In the said suit, the petitioner's evidence had already been closed. The said applications were dismissed by a common order. Aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(MD).Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recently he traced the xerox copy of partition list. Consequently, the petitioner filed IA Nos.11, 12 and 13 of 2025 seeking to reopen, recall and mark the xerox copy as an exhibit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the xerox copy of the partition list is the substantial evidence and it is necessary to mark before the trial Court to prove the case of the petitioner. However, the trial Court dismissed the applications on the ground that a xerox copy is not a substantial evidence, which according to the petitioner is not sustainable. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner seeks to mark a xerox copy of the partition list dated 22.02.1979 at a belated stage, after closure of evidence. Further, As rightly held by the trial Court, a mere xerox copy, cannot be treated as substantial evidence for the purpose of 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(MD).Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 admissibility. Therefore, the dismissal of the applications does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 04.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN To 1.The District Munsif Court, Keeranur. 2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R..P.(MD).Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI,J. PKN C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2126 to 2128 of 2025 04.08.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis