The High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed to set aside an order rejecting petitions to reopen a suit for examination of witnesses and to summon an official witness. The Court held the applications were filed to protract proceedings as relevant documents had already been marked.
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: 01.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P (PD) Nos. 4736 & 4737 of 2017 and
C.M.P. No.22294 of 2017 in C.R.P. (PD) No.4736 of 2017
Mr.A.T.Shanmugam .. Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs
Mrs.P.Gandhimathi .. Respondent in both CRPs
PRAYER in both CRPs: These Civil Revision Petition are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.03.2017 passed in I.A. No.1285 & 1286 of 2016 in O.S. No.755 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
For Petitioner in both CRPs :Mr.T.Thiyagarajan
C O M M O N O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.03.2017 passed in I.A. No.1285 & 1286 of 2016 in O.S. No.755 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Alandur.
2
recovery of possession. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent filed her written statement on 21.02.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Interlocutory Applications in I.A. No.1285 and 1286 of 2016, seeking to
re-open the above suit for examination of witnesses and to permit the petitioner to issue summon to the official witness and examine, respectively. The court below dismissed the said applications, holding that the petitioner had already filed I.A. No. 1251 of 2014 to reopen his
side evidence for letting in further documents and the same was allowed. The petitioner also marked Ex.A-7 to Ex.A-10, particularly, Ex.A-9 the information received by the plaintiff under Right to Information and the same has also been marked without any objection. Later, when the case was posted for arguments, the instant application has been filed, which clearly shows that the same has been filed only to protract the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before this Court.
3
fabricated documents before the court below. In order to disprove the
said documents and to show that the same are forged and fabricated, the petitioner has filed the additional documents obtained under the Rights to Information Act.
have already been filed under Ex.A7 to Ex.A10 and particularly A9.
Therefore, the court below has rightly observed and dismissed the said applications. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the court below.
01.03.2018
Speaking / Non Speaking order Index :Yes/No
[Issue order copy on 03.05.2018] avr
4
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,
avr
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.
C.R.P (PD) Nos. 4736 & 4737 of 2017
and
C.M.P. No.22294 of 2017 in
C.R.P. (PD) No.4736 of 2017
01.03.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of interlocutory applications seeking re-opening of the suit for examination of evidence as being filed merely to protract proceedings.
Whether additional documents marked via Right to Information constitute sufficient grounds to reopen the suit for examination of witnesses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr.A.T.Shanmugam
Mrs.P.Gandhimathi
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
