Allowed

Vasanthi v. Pandi(Died)

Madras HC11 Oct 2017CRP(MD)/1536/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court set aside the lower court's order dismissing an application to reopen a suit for producing fresh evidence regarding signatures and flight tickets, permitting limited admission while preserving respondents' right to cross-examine.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to let in evidence limited to signature verification and flight ticket; respondents retained right to cross-examine.

Vasanthi Vs Pandi(Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

C.R.P.(MD).No.1536 of 2017(PD) & C.M.P.(MD).No.8429 of 2017

¶7

Vasanthi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/3^rd party

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Pandi (died)

¶10

1.Mookandi 2.Ganapathy 3.Subbiah 4.Selvaganapathy @ Selvaganapathy Raja 5.P.Mariammal 6.P.Esakkiammal 7.Muppidathi 8.P.Rathinam ... Respondents/Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decreetal order, dated 25.07.2017 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2017 in E.A.110 of 2011 in E.A.No.76 of 2011 in E.P.No.37 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2010 on the file of Sub Court, Ambasamuthram.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.R.Aravindan for R3 No appearance for R1, R2, R4 to R8

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. The fifth respondent is the defendant. The respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2010, before the Sub Court, Ambasamuthram, for specific performance against the fifth respondent on the basis of the agreement dated 18.10.2007. The suit was decreed exparte. The petitioner is the third party to the suit.

¶16

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein, who is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the third party, filed E.A.No.44 of 2017 to re-open the main petition for the purpose of examining the petitioner as a witness

¶17

¶18

on her side. The respondents objected the same. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner/3^rd party filed the present civil revision petition.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application has been filed for the purpose of letting evidence stating that the signature in the petition is only her signature and to produce the flight ticket, on the date which he had come here from Mumbai. Only for that limited purpose she wanted to re-open the matter and to let in evidence in this regard. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 MLJ 476 (Muthuvel Nainar v. D.A.Hatheeja Beebi and Ors.) in support of his case.

¶20

The objection of the respondent is that since the petitioner has already filed a petition before the lower Court for reopening the evidence, the impugned petition has become infructuous. The allegation made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is dragging on the matter by filing such application.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to get along with the case on the day to day basis.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that assuming for the moment that this Court is inclined to re-open the matter, then the respondents right to cross-examine the petitioner would not be curtailed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to let in evidence only for the limited purpose with regard to the signature in the petition and vakalat and to mark the flight ticket. It is needless to state that that respondents are at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner.

¶25

9.In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed for the limited purpose indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32

The Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram.

¶33

- 1 cc TO Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai , Advocate in SR No. 82577 + 1 cc TO Mr.R.Aravindan , Advocate in SR No. 82572

¶34

jikr

¶35

AE/SKN RSK/SAR2/31.10.2017/3P/4C

¶36

Order made in C.R.P.(MD).No.1536 of 2017(PD) & C.M.P.(MD).No.8429 of 2017 11.10.2017

¶37

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

Vasanthi v. Pandi(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanthi v. Pandi(Died)

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

Viswanathan Chettiar Vs S.Natchammai @ Meenal

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Taj Nisha

Santhanam @ Sundaraj Vs a.P.Sanmugavel

T.N.Rajan Vs S. Balu

G. Mohammed Rafee Vs Mr.C. Jeyaseelan(Dismissed)

Muthukumar, Vs Vanitha