Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 29-07-2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Applicant(s) include R. Murali (Deceased) and a list of 22 individuals and Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam; Respondent(s) include Colla Venkata Chandrasekar Chetty (DharmaKartha) and others.
- The application was filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Order I Rule 1A(3) of the CPC to receive two additional documents: (i) a Letter from Tamil Nadu Arya Vysya Mahasabha to the 2nd defendant dated 13‑09‑2025; (ii) a Greater Chennai Corporation Property Tax Receipt in the name of Kalavala Kannan Chetty dated 13‑10‑2025, filed by the Applicant/2nd Defendant and described in the schedule appended to the Judge’s summons.
- The applicant’s counsel explained that after the demise of the former counsel, the applicant discovered that the written statement had not been filed. Consequently, an application (A.No.5315 of 2024) was filed to adopt the written statement filed by the 1st defendant on 07‑08‑2014, which the Court allowed. Because the written statement was not filed at the appropriate time, supporting documents for the defence were also not filed, prompting the present request for the two documents.
- The 1st respondent filed a counter‑affidavit objecting to the late receipt of the documents, asserting they lack relevance, necessity, and admissibility. The 4th respondent expressed no objection and endorsed the application.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the admissibility and relevance of the documents cannot be decided at this stage; the primary issue is whether belatedly filed documents may be received.
- Emphasising that a trial court must provide parties sufficient opportunity to produce all available evidence, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application, subject to the parties proving the relevance of the documents.
Topics: Court Procedure, Document Admission