Allowed

Jeevarathina Gramani v. Lakshmikanthan

Madras HC27 Feb 2018CRP/4275/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras set aside the lower court's order dismissing an application to scrap a witness's testimony due to his health. The revision was allowed, directing the District Munsif to dispose of the pending suit within five months.

What did the court decide?

The order of the court below setting aside the application to scrap evidence is set aside; the suit to be disposed of within five months.

Jeevarathina Gramani Vs Lakshmikanthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.2.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.4275 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.20050 of 2017
Jeevarathina Gramani ... Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
Lakshmikanthan ... Respondent/Plaintiff
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order, dated 4.8.2017 made in I.A.No.893 of
2017 in O.S.No.60 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif, Madurantagam.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondent : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan *****

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

According to the petitioner, the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction against the

¶10

petitioner herein. On the side of the petitioner/defendant, petitioner was examined as D.W.1 and thereafter, the suit was posted on 27.2.2017 for cross examination of D.W.1. On 27.2.2017, the petitioner undergone the operation

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

of his left side chest. Thereafter, he was suffering from hypertension and the petitioner was mentally unstable. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to let in evidence for cross examination. Hence, he filed an application to scrap the evidence of D.W.1/petitioner herein. After hearing both sides, the court below dismissed the application. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil revision petition

¶14

before this Court.

¶15

2 The learned counsel for the respondent objected for allowing

¶16

the application, but fairly stated that the suit is pending for more than four years, that too, at the evidence stage. Hence, it is appropriate to pass an

¶17

order to dispose of the suit within a time fixed by this Court.

¶18

3 In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is

¶19

set aside and the Civil revision petition is allowed, with a direction to the learned District Munsif, Madurantagam to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶21

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

27.2.2018

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes/No vaan

¶26

¶27

The District Munsif, Madurantagam

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶31

vaan

¶32

C.R.P.(PD) No.4275 of 2017 and
C.M.P.No.20050 of 2017

¶33

Dated: 27.2.2018

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

Jeevarathina Gramani v. Lakshmikanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevarathina Gramani v. Lakshmikanthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.R. Garden Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs v. Srinivasa Rao

G. Paramasivam Vs a. Sudha

M/S. Jayabharatham Furniture Vs Mr. B. Srinivasan

D. Vijay Vs M/S. Shri Ram Chits Tamilnadu

S.N. Paramasivam Vs R. Chandra

U.Sridhar, Vs Arun N.Pai,S/O.Narsimha Pai