The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Trial Court order admitting a witness despite a conditional order restricting their examination. The Court found the delay was attributable to the petitioner's counsel's negligence in cross-examination.
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: 10.02.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRP(PD)No.4789 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
Sundaram Mudaliyar .. Petitioner
Vs
Balakrishnan .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal Order dated 23.07.2013 made in I.A.No.640 of 2013 in I.A.No.430 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jeyamkondam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatasubbaan for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent : Mr.Balakrishnan (No Appearance)
ORDER
This civil revision petition is directed against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.07.2013 made in I.A.No.640 of 2013 in I.A.No.430 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the learned
2
District Munsif Court, Jeyamkondam.
2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit filed for the relief of declaration and consequent injunction.
3.According to the revision petitioner the suit property was sold
by the first defendant in favour of the revision petitioner, however regardless of sale again the 1st defendant attempted to interfere with the Peaceful possession of the suit property, hence the above suit was filed by revision petitioner and in the meantime the first defendant died and his legal heirs / respondents herein were brought on record.
4.During Trial on the side of respondents totally 3 witnesses stood examined. It is relevant to note here that previously the respondent’s side evidence was closed without examination of
witnesses and later the witnesses came to be examined by a conditional order made in I.A.No.439 of 2011 by the trial Court.
5.In the said circumstance, the revision petitioner came up with
the above Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.640 of 2013 in I.A.No.439 of 2011 seeking to scrap the evidence of RW3 stating that
the examination of RW3 was in violation of the conditional order made
3
by the trial Court. The Learned trial judge dismissed the revision petitioner's application holding that the violation cannot be held wanton or willful but the same was because of the failure on the part of the revision petitioner’s counsel before the trial Court vide the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision
petition.
6.I heard Mr.K.Venkatasubbaan for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the respondent.
7.The only grievance of the petitioner is that despite a conditional order stipulating particular time to produce and examine witness, the respondent has failed to do so. Whereas regardless of respondent’s failure in producing witness in time the trial Court has allowed the examination of witnesses beyond the stipulated time.
8.At this juncture, on perusal of the case records, it is obvious
for this Court to see that the delay in examination of the witnesses on the side of the respondents is only because of the revision petitioner’s Counsel before the trial Court.
4
9.It is further seen that though the witnesses on the side of the respondent were present in the Court, the Counsel for the revision petitioner has not turned up to cross examine them and had sought time twice. Only in the said factual backdrop there was a delay and non compliance of the conditional order.
10.Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the
Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner attributing delay towards the respondents and accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is found devoid of merits.
11.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order dated 23.07.2013 made in I.A.No.640 of 2013 in I.A.No.430 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Jeyamkondam. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2017
Note:Issue order copy on 31.01.2019 vs Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
To
The District Munsif Court, Jeyamkondam.
5
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
vs
CRP(PD)No.4789 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
10.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition seeking to challenge the admission of witness evidence due to delay is sustainable given the counsel's own admitted failure to cross-examine promptly.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing witness examination beyond a stipulated time frame caused by the petitioner's counsel rather than the respondent.
Sundaram Mudaliyar
Balakrishnan
M.V.MURALIDARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
