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
…