CRP No. 2125 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-07-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 2125 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 12389 OF 2025, CRP NO. 2126 OF 2025 1. P. Radhakrishnan S/o. Balaiah Nadar, D.No.19A2, Kamarajar Nagar, M.G.R Nagar, Madukkarai Road, Sundarapuram, SIDCO ( Post), Coimbatore. Petitioner in both CRPs Vs 1. S.P. Viswanathan S/o. C.S. Palanisamy, D.No.92B, Kamarajar Nagar, SIDCO (Post), Coimbatore. Respondent in both CRPs PRAYER in CRP No. 2125 of 2025 This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2024 passed in IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.1461 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore and allow the petition and pass further or such other order that may deem at fit and proper and circumstances and render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2125 of 2025 PRAYER in CRP No. 2126 of 2025: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2024 passed in IA No.5 of 2024 in OS No.1461 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore and allow the petition and pass further or such other order that may deem at fit and proper and circumstances and render justice. In both CRPs: For Petitioner: Mr.A. Swaminathan For Respondent: M/S.P.R.Ramesh Babu COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.The defendant, whose application to receive additional documents was dismissed, is the revision petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Swaminathan, would bring to my notice the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, who is vehemently contending that the promissory notes were given only as a security for chit transactions and it is only the documents relating to the chit transactions that are sought to be filed. 4. It is also his specific case as the revision petitioner that these https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2125 of 2025 documents were put to PW.1 during the cross-examination; PW.1 has not admitted the said documents. Therefore, it became necessary for the revision petitioner to file the documents as documents on his side. 5.The said application was objected to by the respondent/plaintiff on the grounds that the petitioner has not set out any reasons for the non production of the said documents along with the written statement and the application does not contain any valid reasons for the production of the additional documents at the belated stage of evidence of the defendants. 6. The trial court has also accepted the contentions put forth by the respondent/plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss the application, holding that the defendant was only trying to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. 7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels on either side. I have also gone through the impugned order. 8.The suit is for recovery of money instituted by the respondent/plaintiff based on the promissory notes said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant. It is stated in the written statement that the promissory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2125 of 2025 notes were not for consideration but only for security in respect of the chit transactions about which specific plea has been taken in the written statement in Paragraph No. 7. The defence raised by the revision petitioner in the suit is that the promissory note is without consideration and the suit claim is therefore not genuine, and the suit was liable to be dismissed on that score. 9. No doubt PW.1 has been examined in chief and cross, and after taking adjournments, an attempt was made to reopen and recall the evidence of PW.1, and elaborate cross-examination was carried out. However, it is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that when these chit transactions were put to the plaintiff's witness the documents were not admitted and therefore the same could not be marked. As a consequence, the documents are now sought to be filed on the side of the defendants. 10.I do not see any serious prejudice being caused to the respondent/ plaintiff since the specific contention that the promissory notes were only issued as security for chit transactions, has already been pleaded in the written statement, at the earliest instance. Merely because the documents were not enclosed along with the written statements it should not be a ground to deny a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2125 of 2025 fair opportunity to the petitioner to put forth the documents and advance his objections during the stage of the trial. The findings of the trial Court that he attempted to produce these documents only to fill up the lacuna are also tenable in view of the said contentions being raised in the written statement, specifically in this regard. 11.In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of the trial court, and give an opportunity to the petitioner to mark the documents which are only in support of the contentions raised in the written statement already. For this limited purpose, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside. The evidence of D.W.1 shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the suit shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks thereafter on merits in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 24-07-2025 jrs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2125 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI J. jrs To The Judge, IV Additional Subordinate Court at Coimbatore. CRP No. 2125 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 12389 OF 2025, CRP NO. 2126 OF 2025 24.07.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis