High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Rent Controller's refusal to recall a witness for cross-examination in an eviction petition, finding the petitioner had not made out grounds for the recall.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.R.P.(PD) NO.485 OF 2015
G.K.Harihara Rajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Niamathullah ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed in M.P.No.8 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.875 of 2008 by the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, declining to recall PW-1 for cross examination.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Harihara Rajan Party in person For Respondent : Mr.S.Veeraraghavan
2
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed in M.P.No.8 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.875 of 2008 by the learned XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The petitioner/tenant is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.875 of 2008, which was filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner filed the petition in M.P.No.8 of 2015 to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that P.W.2, who is the son of the respondent, on 22 occasions had given answers stating that his father alone knows the facts. The petition was opposed by the respondent by filing a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 20.01.2015. Aggrieved by the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3.Mr.G.K.Harihara Rajan, the petitioner, who appeared in person,
has submitted that he should be given opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 only
in respect of the answers elicited from P.W.2. The petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the petition for recalling P.W.1.
3
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that the petition in M.P.No.8 of 2015 was filed to prolong the litigation.
5.Considering the facts, I am of the view that the petitioner has
not made out grounds to recall P.W.1 and the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
05.02.2015
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Note : Issue order copy on 06.02.2015 TK
To
The XI Judge Small Causes Court Chennai.
4
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
TK
C.R.P.(PD) NO.485 OF 2015
05.02.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient grounds exist for recalling a witness for cross-examination in a landlord-tenant eviction proceeding.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.K.Harihara Rajan
Niamathullah
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
