Public excerpt

CRP(MD)/3036/2024 of P.Palraj Vs S.Ravithiruvambalam - Madras High Court (Madras High Court)

Court: Madras High Court (Madras High Court) Case: HCMD011281222024 Parties: CRP(MD)/3036/2024 of P.Palraj Vs S.Ravithiruvambalam Pages: 6 Characters (full): 4494

Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.

C.R.P(MD)No.3036 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN 
THILAKAVADI 
C.R.P(MD)No.3036 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.17286 of 2024
P.Palraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Ravithiruvambalam
2.R.Lathashanmugam
3.R.Anandh Subramaniyan
4.R.Valli Nayagam
5.S.Kuthalam
6.K.Selvamala
7.S.Sankar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision  Petition  is filed under Article 227 of the 
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in 
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.3036 of 2024
I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2021, dated 01.10.2024 on the file of 
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli therein, by 
allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
  
  For Petitioner
  : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar
                      
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order 
passed in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.296 of 2021, dated 01.10.2024. 
2. The  revision  petitioner  as  plaintiff  filed  the  above  suit  in 
O.S.No.296 of 2021 for specific performance. Pending suit, the petitioner 
filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2024 under Order XVI, Rule 1 Clause 
3  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Code,  1908  for  examination  of  additional 
witness. In the said application, it is averred that the suit sale agreement 
is a fraudulent document and that on the date of the said agreement (i.e.,) 
on 04.06.2022, the petitioner went to meet his Counsel and the same can 
be established by the communication sent by the said Counsel to the 
petitioner. Hence, the said document and evidence of the Counsel is very 
well relevant to support the case of the petitioner that he never signed the 
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.3036 of 2024
alleged agreement. The said application was resisted on the side of the 
respondent stating that it is a privilege communication and therefore, the 
same cannot be marked. The Trial Court referring to Section 126 of the 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dismissed the said application stating that 
since it is a 'privilege communication', the same cannot be permitted to 
be marked on the side of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the present 
revision is preferred. 
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would 
submit that as per Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a bar 
to disclose any communication made to a Counsel by his client without 
the consent of the client. But the present case is different. The said 
communication by the learned Counsel to the petitioner is not a privilege 
communication and it is a communication sent to the petitioner by his 
Counsel giving appointment to meet him. Therefore, the order passed by 
the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD)No.3036 of 2024
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the 
materials available on record. 
5. On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner intend to 
mark a document which is a communication sent by the Counsel to the 
petitioner herein giving appointment for the petitioner to meet him on a 
particular date. The Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that 
the said communication cannot be disclosed as it is barred under Section 
126  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  1872,  since  it  is  a  privileged 
communication  between  the  client  and  the  learned  Counsel.  The 
petitioner  intend  to  mark  the  document  to  prove  that  he  had  an 
appointment with his Counsel on the date of the alleged sale agreement 
and  therefore,  he  could  not  have  signed  the  agreement.  Such 
communication cannot be relied upon since it can be easily fabricated for 
the purpose of the case. The petitioner has to prove his case only by 
concrete evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court do not 
warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision 
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/jud

…