Dismissed

K.Ramesh v. v.Latha

Madras HC21 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed civil revision petitions filed under Article 226 challenging the order refusing to recall a witness and reopen a civil suit. The court held the applications were bona fide but dismissed because the petitioners were abusing the process to delay proceedings, ordered the suit's disposal by July 31, 2014, and refrained from interfering.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were dismissed; the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31.7.2014. No costs awarded.

K.Ramesh Vs v.Latha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.4.2014 CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRP(MD).Nos.880 and 881 of 2014 and MP(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2014

¶5

K.Ramesh .. Petitioner in both CRPs. -VsV.Latha .. Respondent in both CRPs.

¶6

Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 17.3.2014 in I.A.Nos.92 and 93 of 2014 in O.S.No.1907 of 2006 on the file of learned II Additional District Munsif (FAC), Tiruchirappalli.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Kannan

¶8

COMMON ORDER

¶9

The first defendant in O.S.No.1907 of 2006 is the petitioner. The respondent filed the suit for declaration that cancellation of gift deed executed by first defendant dated 24.2.2003 as null and void and for consequential reliefs.

¶10

The petitioner has filed written statement and is contesting the suit. The petitioner filed two applications in the suit I.A.Nos.92 and 93 of 2014, one to reopen the case and another application to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The petitioner has filed the applications stating that PW.1 was cross-examined by him, but unfortunately vital questions regarding settlement deed have been omitted.

¶11

The respondent filed counter resisting the applications contending that the suit is of the year 2004 and the trial in the suit had commenced in the year 2011 and on 23.2.2011, the respondent filed proof affidavit and the suit is pending for cross-examination of PW.1 from 25.2.2011. It is further stated in the counter that first defendant/petitioner herein had cross-examined PW.1 on 29.1.2014, 7.2.2014 and 13.2.2014 and the 2^nd defendant made his cross-examination on 18.2.2014, 21.2.2014 and 26.2.2014 and a lengthy cross-examination was done on those days. The respondent has further stated that the applications are motivated with malafide intention to drag on the proceedings.

¶12

The respondent further stated that in para 5 of the counter that she has been afflicted with cancer and she has done mastectomy recently and she was canvalescing stage. She is also undergoing chemotherapy and other treatment procedures to prevent the virulence of the disease. The learned District Munsif dismissed both the applications. Challenging the order, the present revisions are filed.

¶13

Heard Mr.AL.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perused the records.

¶14

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed the suit to cancel the settlement deed and so there is every necessity to recall PW.1 to ask some more vital questions relating to the settlement deed and cancellation deed. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned District Munsif dismissed the applications holding that there was a direction by this Court for early disposal of the suit. The learned counsel further submitted that on the ground of direction by this Court for early disposal of the suit, the petitioner's right cannot be defeated. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Tmt.Krishnaveni vs Gopal Pandithar reported in http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1852297.

¶16

It is seen from the records that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the trial in the suit had commenced in the year 2011. PW.1 had filed proof affidavit on 23.2.2011 and since then, the case is being adjourned for cross-examination of the defendants. It is not in dispute that PW.1 was cross-examined by the petitioner on 29.1.2014, 7.2.2014 and 13.2.2014 and PW.1 was cross-examined by the second defendant on 18.2.2014, 21.2.2014 and 26.2.2014. The learned counsel submitted that this Court in CRP(MD).No.452 of 2012 has issued a direction to the trial Court to complete the trial on or before 15.3.2014.

¶17

In the decision in Tmt.Krishnaveni vs Gopal Pandithar reported in http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1852297, it is held in para 5 as under:-

¶18

“5. It is therefore clear that even after commencement of trial, application for amendment is maintainable; however, it is the responsibility of the party, who file such application, to satisfy the Court that there is bona fide in his application and the same is filed not to delay the trial. In the case on hand, it is specifically asserted that by mistake, the counsel has omitted to put some vital questions to DW.1 which was accepted by the learned District Munsif and allowed the petitions with costs of Rs.100/- considering the inconvenience caused to the other side/defendants. In view of the legal position as clarified in the Second Salem Advocate Bar Association case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra), and of the fact that the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction judicially, in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. Consequently, both the revision petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.”

¶19

In my considered view, the Judgment is not helpful to the petitioner. It is held that a party, who files such application has to satisfy the Court that there is bonafide in the application.

¶20

It is settled law that a witness cannot be recalled in a routine manner and there must be bonafide for such request. Facts of the case establish that the petitioner is abusing the process of law and filed those petitions to prolong the litigation. The learned District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Munsif in well considered order dismissed the applications, which does not warrant interference by this Court. The learned District Munsif shall dispose of the suit on or before 31.7.2014.

¶21

¶22

The civil revision petitions are dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Connected MP(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 are closed. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The II Additional District Munsif (FAC), Tiruchirappalli.

¶28

CRP(MD).Nos.880 and 881 of 2014 and MP(MD).Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 21.4.2014

¶29

vks PBK 28/04/2014 3P/2C(IT)

¶30

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

K.Ramesh v. v.Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramesh v. v.Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subbaiah, S/O. Muthukonar, Vs Nagarajan

Majibha Banu, Vs the Union of India, Rep. by

Malliga Begum Vs the Union of India

K.Jawahar (M/64), Vs a.Periyapalanichamy

Rajan Vs Retna Raj

Chandran, Vs a.R.Angusamy