Dismissed

R.Gnanasoundari, v. R.Chellappan

Madras HC22 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/47/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed to set aside the trial Court's order allowing the reopening and reception of additional documents. The Court held the trial Court acted reasonably in granting an opportunity to exhibit documents after the petitioner denied execution during cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions No. 47 to 49 of 2014 dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

R.Gnanasoundari, Vs R.Chellappan — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

CRP(MD).Nos.47 to 49 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 of 2014 (three Mps)

¶7

R.Gnanasoundari : Petitioner in all CRPs/Respondent/Defendant

¶8

¶9

R.Chellappan : Respondents in all CRPs/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

CRP.Nos.47 to 49 of 2014: These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the orders passed in I.A.Nos.512 to 514 of 2013,in OS.No.305 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam, dated 03.12.2013.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrsekar

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

The defendant/ petitioner is before this Court challenging the orders passed in I.A.Nos. 512 to 514 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013, to reopen, recall and reception of additional documents filed by the plaintiff/ respondent.

¶14

Heard the submission of Mr.V.Chandrsekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

The suit is for a specific performance of the agreement. When the matter is posted for arguments, the plaintiff / respondent filed three documents contending that one important letter said to have been written by the petitioner herein was not marked, as the petitioner denied the execution of the said letter. Since the petitioner denied the execution during the cross-examination, the respondent has left with no other option, but to reopen the petitioner's evidence and recall and for reception of additional documents. I am of the view that the respondent should be given an opportunity to exhibit the documents, especially, before the trial Court, otherwise, the respondent may not have any chance to exhibit the said documents. If there is any objection with regard to the documents, it is always open to the petitioner to cross-examine on those documents. When such an option is available to impeach the document to be marked, the petitioner cannot maintain these Civil Revision Petitions. The reasons given by the trial Court is reasonable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and cannot be interfered with by this Court.

¶16

¶17

All the Civil Revision Petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶18

sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ssm To The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam. +1CC to Mr.V.Chandrsekar,Advocate in SR.No. 3819 CRP(MD).Nos.47 to 49 of 2014 22.01.2014 RG.04.02.2014 2P.3C.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Gnanasoundari, v. R.Chellappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gnanasoundari, v. R.Chellappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, Vs Sivakami, W/O. Kannan

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, Vs M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

Mani, Vs Kalyani

Malaisamy, Vs a. Paulraj

S. Batchakhan, Vs K. Gaffarkhan

Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Vs M/S.Tnpl Contract Thozhilalar