Allowed

Minor S. Easwari Prithiyankera v. R. Shiyamala

Madras HC28 Apr 2018CRP(MD)/743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a civil revision petition to permit the reopening of the plaintiff's evidence in a partition suit, directing the trial court to recall the witness within a week. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within a month to prevent unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the Trial Court is directed to recall the plaintiff's evidence within a week and dispose of the suit within a month.

Minor S. Easwari Prithiyankera Vs R. Shiyamala — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 743 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) No.3247 of 2018

¶7

Minor.S. Easwari Prithiyankera through her Mother and Guardian Tmt.S.Kokilavani

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

R. Shiyamala R. Selvaraj (died)

¶11

The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Municipal Office, Main Road, Dindigul.

¶12

R.S. Jeeva Lakshmi

¶13

R.S. Nandhini

¶14

R.S. Ramaraj Kiran .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the Fair and Decreetal order dated 08.02.2018 made in the I.A.No.114 of 2018 in O.S.No.230 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.

¶16

For Respondent-1 : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent-2 : Mrs.V.P.M. Vaishnavi, Government Advocate.

¶17

For Respondents-3 to 5 : No appearance.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition, to call for the records relating to the fair and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decreetal order, dated 08.02.2018 made in the I.A.No.114 of 2018 in O.S.No.230 of 2012, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.

¶20

¶21

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.230 of 2012. The suit in O.S.No.230 of 2012 has been filed by the minor daughter of one Srinivasan, represented by her mother, seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit property, before the learned Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul. The plaintiff's mother was examined as P.W.1. Reopening of the plaintiff's side evidence is necessary to establish the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.114 of 2018 in O.S.No.230 of 2012 to reopen the plaintiff's side evidence. But, the interlocutory application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the documents available on

¶23

record.

¶24

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, has filed an application in I.A.No.114 of 2018 in O.S.No.230 of 2012, for reopening the evidence of the plaintiff. In her affidavit she has stated as follows:

¶25

“I submit that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the suit for Partition and separate possession of her 1/3^rd share in the suit property and for other reliefs against the Respondents/Defendants and it is pending disposal. It is contended by the 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant that my husband had attested the alleged Will on 10.03.2005. The D.W.2 has also deposed that my husband was present on that day in the offices of the document writer and the Sub-Registrar etc. But it is learnt that my husband who was working in the E.B. Office, had attended his office on that date. Hence it becomes necessary that the evidence of the Petitioner will have to be reopened in order to examiner further witnesses to disprove the said contentions of the 1^st Respondent. Otherwise the Petitioner/Plaintiff will be put to much hardship which can not be compensated in any manner”.

¶26

The petitioner states that re-opening of the evidence of the plaintiff is necessary to establish the case of the petitioner. Therefore, she has filed the application to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff.

¶27

Since, the petitioner stated valid reason in para 2 of her affidavit, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to reopen the evidence of plaintiff by way of recalling the witness.

¶28

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The learned Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul, is directed to issue direction for recalling the evidence of the plaintiff and the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination to be completed within a period of one week. On completion of examination of the witness, the trial Court is

¶29

¶30

directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.230 of 2012 within a period of one month, without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either parties. The parties are directed to give their fullest cooperation for early disposal of the suit. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The Additional Sub Judge, Dindigul.

¶37

2.The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality, Municipal Office,

¶38

Main Road, Dindigul.

¶39

+1cc to M/s.H. Lakshmi Shankar, Advocate, SR.No.64693 +1cc to M/s.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No.64737.

¶40

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 743 of 2018

¶41

ksa

¶42

RAM/SV MMS/SAR 4/31.05.2018/3P/5C

¶43

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

Minor S. Easwari Prithiyankera v. R. Shiyamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor S. Easwari Prithiyankera v. R. Shiyamala

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

P. Sathesh Vs M. Vetriselvi

A.Jabarulla Khan Vs H.Vasantha Kumar

Susila Bai W/O.Easwar Rao Vs S.Ragunatha Rao

B.S.Prakash Vs State by

Anand Purusothaman, M/a 40 Yrs Vs the State Rep by Its

Abdulla @ Abdul Muthalif @ Vs State Rep. by