High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing additional evidence under Section 151 CPC. The court held that the trial court acted in consonance with High Court direction and found no infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed confirming the impugned order; suit to be disposed by July 2014.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 15.04.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.646 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.Umamaheswari
2.Minor Sorna Meenakshi
3.Minor Dharshan
.. Petitioners/Defendants 4 to 6/ Respondents 4 to 6
(Minors 2 & 3 rep. by their mother, 1st petitioner)
Vs.
1.R.Kausalya Devi
.. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff/ Petitioner
Sarojini (died)
2.Daniyal Raj
.. 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant/ 2nd Respondent
Nainar (died)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Final Order made in I.A.No.180 of 2013 in O.S.No.5 of 2004, dated 23.01.2014 on the file of the District Court, Sivagangai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.V.Sitharanjandas
ORDER
This memorandum of the Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.01.2014 and made in I.A.No.180 of 2013 in O.S.No.5 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Sivagangai.
2
3
has already been completed and the suit stood posted for advancement of argument on 04.12.2013. The revision petitioners had examined one witness to prove the Will. Under the said circumstance, in order to disprove the validity of the Will produced by the revision petitioners, the first respondent/plaintiff had taken out the above said application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reopen his side for the examination of further witness, which was strongly objected by the revision petitioners on the ground that on the basis of the Will, the third defendant was impleaded as legal heir of the first defendant and that the Will had already been proved. Since the third defendant had passed away leaving behind the respondents 4 to 6 as legal heirs, an additional written statement was also filed and thereafter, it appears that D.W.2 was also cross-examined on the part of the plaintiff.
4
and since the impugned order has been passed inconsonance with the direction of this Court, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order and no interference is required and therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The District Court,Sivagangai.
+1cc to M/s. V.Sitharanjandas Advocate Sr.No.22968 +1cc to M/s. K.K.Senthil Advocate Sr.No.23138 ps
AA/06.05.2014/4p- 4c/
C.R.P(MD)No.646 of 2014 15.04.2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing additional evidence in pursuance of a direction from the High Court warrants interference in a civil revision petition.
Whether the impairment of the first respondent's right to lead rebuttal evidence due to death of a party justifies quashing the order allowing the application under Section 151 of CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Umamaheswari
Minor Sorna Meenakshi
Minor Dharshan
R. Kausalya Devi
Daniyal Raj
T. Mathivanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
