Madras High Court
Otto India Private Limited vs Venkatesh Coke And Power Limited on 10 July, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on : 06.07.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 10.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.3462 of 2026
& CMP.No.15063 of 2026
M/s.Otto India Private Limited,
Represented by Transferee Decree M/s.Papthi Reals,
represented by Partners A.Narayanan
residing at No.139, T.H.Road, Chennai – 600 193
and V.Bhaskaran, having office at No.442/3-C2,
T.H.Road, Minjur, Chennai – 601 203. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Venkatesh Coke and Power Limited,
No.6926A/D1, Chandrawal Road,
New Delhi – 110 007.
2.Ravi Agarwal
3.Rahul Swarup
4.Manju Swaroop .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to
set aside the fair and decretal order dated 10.04.2026 passed in E.A.No.6 of 2021 in
E.A.No.48 of 2021 in E.P.No.128 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioner : Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan
Senior Counsel for
Mr.Jaisankar Srinivas
For Respondents : Mr.Ravikumar Paul
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.V.Seshachari for RR1 and 2
Mr.J.P.Karunakaran for RR3 and 4
ORDER
The decree holder is the revision petitioner, challenging the dismissal of E.A.No.6
of 2021, which was filed to review the order in E.A.No.48 of 2021 in E.P.No.128 of
2017 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tiruvallur.
2. I have heard Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Jaisankar
Srinivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned
Senior Counsel for Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and
Mr.J.P.Karunakaran, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
3. Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel would firstly contend that the
petitioner holds a valid decree in C.S.No.196 of 2005, which was passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta and that the said decree was transmitted to the I
Additional District Court, Tiruvallur, for the purposes of execution by attachment and
sale of the properties of the judgment-debtor. He would further state that attachment was
also ordered and duly notified before the Sub-Register concerned, after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondents failed to appear even in the execution proceedings. He would further state
that thereafter alleging that the respondents came to know about the ex-parte
proceedings only on 25-08-2016, EA.No.48 of 2017 was filed to set aside the ex-parte
order dated 22-10-2008, ordering attachment. He would further state that the said
EA.No. 48 of 2017 was allowed by the trial Court and seeking review of the said order
dated 18-11-2020, the petitioner filed EA.No. 6 of 2021, alleging that the respondents
had not let in any oral evidence, but however, had chosen to mark Exs.P1 to P5. He
would further state that the said application, seeking review was dismissed, as against
which, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel would state that after the
amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, especially Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC,
unless a proof affidavit is filed and documents are marked by the witness, the same
cannot be looked into. His contention is that the trial Court failed to notice the flagrant
violation of the mandate of law under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC and had erroneously
dismissed the review application. He would further state that the decree-holder, despite
obtaining a decree before the competent Court in Calcutta, is unable to reap the benefits
of the said decree. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that the impugned
order may therefore be set aside, with an opportunity being given to the petitioner to
agitate the permissibility of the documents having been marked in the absence of either a
proof affidavit or the witness getting into the box.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In support of his submissions, Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior
Counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in D.Komala Vs. S.D.Ramalingam,
reported in 2021 5 LW 64 and Venkatesh Coke Power Limited Vs. M/s.Otto India Private
Limited in CRP.No.3030 of 2022 dated 18.10.2022, where this Court had passed an order
between the same parties in this revision petition.
6.Mr.Ravikumar Paul, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents would state that at the time of the institution of the suit, the
defendant/Company was under liquidation and the mandatory leave as contemplated
under Companies Act was not obtained and rightly the application to set aside the ex-
parte order came to be allowed in E.A.No.48 of 2017. He would also point out to the
order passed by this Court in CRP.No.3030 of 2022, which was a revision challenging
an order permitting oral and documentary evidence to be adduced in the review
application, where this Court had taken note of the fact that the documents in Exs.P1 to
P5 had already been marked in E.A.No.48 of 2017 and that at the time of marking the
said documents, no objection was taken with regard to the same and hence, proceeded to
hold that it was not open to the petitioner to agitate the admissibility of the documents at
a later stage. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that a very valuable
property of about 100 acres is being held for ransom by the petitioner, decree-holder and
taking advantage of the same, the petitioner is not willing to prosecute the execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition on merits and is harping on technicalities. He would therefore pray for dismissal
of the revision.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel on either side.
8. The fact that E.A.No.48 of 2017 was allowed and the ex-parte order passed in
E.P.No.128 of 2017 was set aside is not in dispute. Equally, it is also an admitted
position that the petitioner, decree-holder sought to review the order in E.A.No.48 of
2017, by taking out EA.No.6 of 2021, mainly on the ground that without filing a proof
affidavit as required under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC, the judgment-debtor has been
permitted to mark exhibits Exs.P1 to P5. I noticed that between the very same parties,
CRP.No.3030 of 2022 was heard and disposed of by this Court on 18-10-2022.
9. No doubt, as rightly contended Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Senior
Counsel, the order which was under challenge in the said revision petition was an order
allowing an application to lead oral and documentary evidence in a review
application. However, this Court was put on notice about not only EA.No.48 of 2017
being allowed, but also the attempt to review the said order by way of EA.No.6 of
2021. In fact, it is only in the said review application that EA.No.15 of 2022 was filed
by the decree-holder, seeking leave to lead oral and documentary evidence. The trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court had allowed the said application, as against, which the respondents herein came
up by way of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this
Court has taken note of the fact that Exs.P1 to P5 had been marked without any
objection and the relevant discussion made by this Court is usefully extracted hereunder:
“6. The short question that arises for consideration in this
revision is whether the 1st respondent is entitled to lead oral
evidence and mark the documents which were already marked
without leading oral evidence in the proceedings sought to be
reviewed (EA.No.48 of 2017). Admittedly, the documents sought to
be marked by the 1st respondent in this review application were
already marked in E.A.No.48 of 2017.
7. It is settled law if a document is marked without any
objection as to proof of document, any objection as to sufficiency or
absence of proof cannot be raised later…..”
10. Further, this Court, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
R.VE.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another,
reported in 2003 (8) SCC 752, held that when documents have been marked on either
side, Exs.P1 to P5 on the side of the respondents and Exs.R1 to R23 on the side of the
petitioner and no objection was taken, then, it would be impermissible for questioning
the admissibility of the documents thereafter. In fact, this Court further held that the
petitioner was also not required to even seek leave to lead oral evidence to mark Exs.R1
to R23, since the documents have already been marked. The very same contentions have
therefore been subject matter of the earlier revision petition and clear findings have been
given. Further, this Court has clearly said that once the documents have been admitted in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence and marked, it was no longer open to either of the parties to question the same
subsequently.
11. In D.Komala’s case, this Court was deciding a statutory first appeal under
Section 96 of CPC and was testing the findings of the trial Court, based on pleadings as
well as oral and documentary evidence. In this context, this Court held that facts can be
proved by proof affidavit as provided under Order XVIII of CPC, but however, marking
of documents can be done only in the manner provided in the proviso to Rule 4(1) in the
presence of the Court, proviso having been inserted by the Amendment Act. However,
even though there may have been a procedural irregularity in admitting documents not
only on the side of the respondents, but also on the side of the petitioner and relying on
the same, admittedly, the petitioner had lost his right in questioning the admissibility and
proof of the documents by allowing the documents to be marked, without any
objection as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.VE.Venkatachala Gounder’s case.
This ratio was also applied in an earlier revision petition between the very same parties
to this revision petition as well. I am therefore unable to see any error or infirmity
committed by the trial Court in dismissing the application, seeking review of the order in
EA.No.48 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Though, this Court was dealing only with EA.No.15 of 2022 taken out by the
petitioner herein, the same question of whether documents filed on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2 as Exs.P1 to P5 could be looked into, in the absence of proof
affidavit being filed or documents being marked through the witness has been
elaborately considered and the contention of the petitioner has been rejected. In such
view of the matter, I am unable to see any interference being warranted with the well
considered order of the trial Court in EA.No.6 of 2021.
13. The trial Court has rightly distinguished the ratio laid down in D.Komala’s
case, which has also been relied on before it, on facts of the present case. The trial
Court also referred to Rule 143 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which does not mandate
recording of oral evidence in execution proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, I would
not find any merit in the revision petition and the revision petition deserves to be
dismissed.
14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.07.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The I Additional District Court, Tiruvallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.No.3462 of 2026
& CMP.No.15063 of 2026
10.07.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
