Disposed

K.M.Karhtikeyalu v. Sri Venugopalaswamy

Madras HC15 Mar 2018CRP/324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to recall a witness, directed the witness to appear for cross-examination, and ordered the suit to be disposed of within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside. P.W.3 was directed to appear on 26.3.2018 for cross-examination. The trial court was ordered to dispose of the suit within four months.

K.M.Karhtikeyalu Vs Sri Venugopalaswamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date: 15.3.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.324 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.1769 of 2018

¶7

1 K.M.Karthikeyalu
2 K.M.Saravanabhava
3 K.M.Subramani
4 K.M.Srinivasalu
5 K.Prabhakar
6 N.Udayakumar
7 N.Gopi
8 N.Subramanyam ... Petitioners/Defendants
Vs
Sri Venugopalaswamy &
Balakrishnaswamy Mandiram
rep. by its Trustee
P.Chandriah Chetty ... Respondent/Plaintiff

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 22.04.2015 made in I.A.No.439 of 2015 in O.S.No.260 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jayabalan For Respondent : Mr.R.Muthuswamy

¶10

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

According to the petitioner, the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.260 of 2006 for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners herein. The petitioners/defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.439 of 2015 to reopen and recall P.W.3 for further cross examination. The said application was dismissed by the court below. Challenging the said order, the defendants have preferred the present Civil revision petition before

¶15

this Court.

¶16

2 After elaborate arguments, counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff fairly submitted that P.W.3 can be cross examined by the petitioner on a particular date. Counsel for the respondent further submits that an opportunity shall also be granted to the respondent to examine P.W.3, otherwise, petitioner unnecessarily delay the proceedings in the suit which was filed in the year 2006 and several applications were filed by the petitioners to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, this Court may fix a date for cross

¶17

examination of P.W.3.

¶18

3 In view of the submissions made by the counsel for both side,

¶19

by consent of both parties, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

¶20

(i) The order passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Ponneri

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

in I.A.No.439 of 2015 in O.S.No.260 of 2006 is set aside.

¶24

(ii) Thiru Balasubramaniam, P.W.3 in the aforesaid suit, is

¶25

directed to appear before the learned District Munsif, Ponneri on 26.3.2018 for further cross examination by the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/ plaintiff is also permitted to examine P.W.3.

¶26

(iii) Both side counsel undertakes to cooperate with the court

¶27

below for further cross examination of P.W.3 by the petitioners side, examination by the respondent side and to dispose of the suit.

¶28

(iv) The learned District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.260 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

The Civil revision petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

15.03.2018

¶31

Speaking/Non Speaking Order

¶32

Index: Yes/No

¶33

vaan

¶34

Note: Issue order copy on 20.3.2018

¶35

¶36

The District Munsif, Ponneri.

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

vaan

C.R.P.(PD) No.324 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.1769 of 2018

¶42

Dated: 15.3.2018

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.M.Karhtikeyalu v. Sri Venugopalaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Karhtikeyalu v. Sri Venugopalaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs K.Umamaheswari

B. Anitha Kumari Vs S. Ravi, S/O. Subbulu

Sivaraj Vs Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.

M.Thiyagarajan Vs United Traders

P.Vaiyapuri Vs S.Balachandar

C.Papopathi@Nagamani Vs N.Mani@Manickam