Under Article 227, this court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of applications to reopen a Hindu Marriage Act case alleging defective cross-examination, upholding the trial court's finding that the witness was already assessed sufficiently.
Both civil revision petitions and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed with no costs.
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.
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022 and CMP.No.1048 of 2022
Chandra
... Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs
Anbukkarasan
... Respondent in both CRPs
Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 04.12.2021 in I.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2021 in HMOP.No.16 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Attur.
(In both CRPs) For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mubarak Basha
COMMON ORDER
The challenge in these revisions is to the order of the trial Court dismissing applications in I.A.Nos.127 and 128 of 2021 filed by the
1/4
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022
petitioner seeking to reopen the case and to enable cross examination of the respondent. The proceedings are under the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband had sought for divorce on the ground for cruelty and desertion. The original proceeding was instituted in the year 2002 is almost 20 years now. The wife had filed the applications seeking to reopen and for permission to cross examine the husband, who was examined as PW1 on the ground that while cross examining the husband, certain questions based on the pleadings in the reply statement have not been asked.
2.The learned trial Judge on an assessment of the evidence which is already on record had concluded that several questions have been put based on the averments in the reply statement and therefore, these petitions have been filed only to drag on the proceedings. The learned trial Court has also taken note of the fact that this Court had directed the trial Court to dispose of the O.P. within a period of three months from 05.03.2021.
3.In view of the said categorically finding of the trial Court the cross examination is complete. I do not think I should interfere with the
2/4
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022
order of the trial Court, both the revisions are therefore dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.02.2022
vs Index: No Speaking order
To:
1.The Subordinate Judge, Attur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
3/4
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CRP(NPD)Nos.205 & 206 of 2022 and CMP.No.1048 of 2022
03.02.2022
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's finding that cross-examination was complete based on the pleadings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandra
Anbukkarasan
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
