Allowed

Palani v. Sadhasivam

Madras HC13 Oct 2022CRP/2278/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to examine the petitioner as a witness. The Court held that despite the petitioner being a contesting witness under a power of attorney, he was entitled to examine himself as a successor-in-interest to the deceased plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court directed to complete proceedings within six months; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Palani Vs Sadhasivam — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP.No.2278 of 2019

¶7

and CMP No.14878 of 2019

¶8

Palani

¶9

.. Revision Petitioner

/2^nd Petitioner/

2^nd plaintiff

..Vs..

Sadhasivam

¶14

Athilakshmi

¶15

Kasiyammal

¶16

Muniyammal

¶17

Vendamirtham

¶18

Pachaiyappan ..Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants

¶19

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to setaside the order and decreetal order dated 07.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.2229 of 2018 in O.S.No.583 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif Madurantakam, Kanchipuram District and allow the petition in I.A.No.2229 of 2019 by allowing this Civil Revision petition.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Nagu Shah N For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Subramanian for R1 & R2 R3, R5 and R6 – No appearance R4 – Insufficient Address

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Revision petitioner is the 2^nd plaintiff in O.S.No.583 of 2014.

¶25

Originally, the suit was filed by his father late Govindasamy for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief against the defendants before the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam. The defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement, issues were framed and the trial was commenced. The Plaintiff Govindasamy was examined as PW1. PW2 was also examined and thereafter, Govindasamy (PW1) was died and his son was added as a 2^nd plaintiff in the suit. He filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 3(A) to permit him to adduce evidence as PW3 in I.A.No.2229 of 2018. The said application was objected by another contesting defendant stating that after cross examination of PW2, the 2^nd plaintiff is not entitiled to examine himself as a witness. On considering both sides submission, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that without obtaining permission to examine himself as witness, he cross examined PW2. Challenging the said order, this Civil Revision petition has been filed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that after the death of the father of this petitioner, the 2^nd plaintiff impleaded himself in the suit. Since the plaintiff side evidence is yet to be closed, he filed an application to examine himself as one of the witness.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶30

that revision petitioner being a contesting witness to the general power of attorney and impleaded him as plaintiff in the suit, he had lost his opportunity to examine himself as a witness. Therefore, prays this Court to dismiss this revision petition.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing on both side and perused the materials placed before it.

¶32

This Court is of the view that though the petitioner being the son of the deceased Govindasamy, was impleaded as a 2^nd plaintiff in the suit, he has to necessarily examine himself as PW3 because already PW2 evidence was adduced before the Trial Court and therefore, the reason assigned by the Trial Court as such is not maintainable. Opportunity shall be given to the party to examine himself as witness, even though he is a contesting witness of the Power of Attorney, due to the death of his father and hence, he is entitled to adduce himself as a witness on the side of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Since the suit is pending from the year 2014, the learned Trial Court is directed to complete the case within a period of

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

¶35

six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the

¶36

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

13.10.2022

¶38

rka Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

To District Munsif Madurantakam, Kanchipuram District

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

T. V.THAMILSELVI.,J

rka

District Munsif Madurantakam, Kanchipuram District

¶46

CRP.No.2278 of 2019

¶47

13.10.2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Palani v. Sadhasivam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palani v. Sadhasivam

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

Saroja (Deceased) Vs Seeralan

D.S.Mohanraj Vs N.Sulochana

G.Kamatchi Vs G.Suguna

P.Madheswaran Vs M/S.Margadarasi Chits Pvt. Ltd.

B.Sumithra Vs G.Sukumaran

Lions Club International Dist Vs v.Vallabhan