Partly allowed

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

Madras HC14 Mar 2018CRP/4215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Civil Revision Petition #4215 of 2017 set aside the portion of the lower courts order permitting an Advocate to be examined as a witness in a suit for declaration of title and possession, while allowing the examination of an attesting witness.

What did the court decide?

Order summoning Advocate Gurumoorthy set aside; petitioner permitted to examine Muralikrishnan; suit directed to be disposed by 30.07.2018.

B. Anitha Kumari Vs S. Ravi, S/O. Subbulu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No.4215 of 2017
and
C.M.P NO.19754 of 2017
B. Anitha Kumari .. Petitioner
Vs
1. S. Ravi
2. S. Thiyagarajan
@ icehouse Thiyagarajan
3. K.M. Ismail
4. Mahavir Surana
5. M. Rajan
6. The Manager
Bank of India
Asset Recovery Branch
Star House, Ist Floor
No.30 Erabalu Street
Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.08.2017 partly allowing the I.A. No.87 of 2017 in O.S. No.109 of 2010 by the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.G. Peranban For Respondents : Mr. S. Vijayandan for R1 Mr. R. Selvakumar for R6 No Appearance for R2 to R5

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.08.2017 partly allowing the I.A. No.87 of 2017 in O.S. No.109 of 2010 by the III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶13

The 1^st respondent filed the suit in O.S. No.109 of 2010 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession against the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.87 of 2017, under Section 151 of CPC to issue summons to the petition mentioned witnesses, to examine four witnesses from the list of witnesses. After hearing the contesting parties, the court below allowed the said application, permitting the 1^st respondent to examine Advocate Mr.Gurumoorthy and one Mr. Muralikrishnan. The said application was

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

dismissed, in respect of summoning of 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. Challenging the said order, the 3^rd respondent has filed the present civil revision petition before this Court.

¶17

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit

¶18

that filing of an application to examine Advocate Gurumoorthy, who rendered his legal opinion to purchase the suit property by the revision petitioner, is unsustainable in law. In so far as the other witness, if the petitioner chooses to examine the said Muralikrishnan, who is an attesting witness, can be examined on the side of plaintiff's side witness.

¶19

Therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would

¶21

submit that the 1^st respondent is pressing to examine the said

¶22

Muralikrishnan and it is not essential to examine Advocate Gurumoorthy

¶23

to establish the plaintiff's case and disprove the case of the revision petitioner/ 3^rd defendant. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent

¶24

also agreed that Mr. Muralikrishnan can be examined as plaintiff's side witness.

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

¶28

and this Court is inclined to pass the following order :-

¶29

The order passed by the court below, in so far as permitting the

¶30

plaintiff to examine Advocate Gurumoorthy is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine Muralikrishnan, as plaintiff's side witness, in the aforesaid suit. Hence, the order passed by the

¶31

court below in I.A. No. 87 of 2017 in O.S. No. 109 of 2010 is partly

¶32

modified.

¶33

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 30.07.2018.

¶34

In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is partly

¶35

allowed to the above extent. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous

¶36

Petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

14.03.2018

¶38

Index: Yes/ No

¶39

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order [Issue order copy on 04.05.2018] avr

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

¶42

¶43

The Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶45

¶46

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶47

avr
CRP (PD) No.4215 of 2017
and
C.M.P NO.19754 of 2017
14.03.2018

¶48

http://www.judis.nic.in

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palaniammal Vs M.Chinnasamy

S. Revathi Vs M/S Vijay Poly Pipe

K.R.Abdul Sattur Vs C.Shiraunesha

Lakshmi Vs K.Umamaheswari

Sivaraj Vs Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd.

S.Mani Vs P.Indirani