Petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of her application to strike off evidence. The High Court directed the trial court to fix a date for cross-examination, allowing the suit to proceed if respondents fail to cross-examine.
Petitioner directed to appear for cross-examination; if respondents fail to cross-examine, the suit shall proceed.
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(MD)No.2090 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 17.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.9607 of 202
Pattalammal
... Petitioner
Vs
1.Karuppasamy
2.Varalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil in IA.No.6 off 202 in OS.No.31 of 2017 dated 06.09.022 and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajasekar
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed as against the
fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil in IA.No.6 of 202 in OS.No.31 of 2017 dated 06.09.022 and set aside the same.
1/5
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022
2.The petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.31 of 2017 for declaration and for recovery of possession. The respondents remained ex-parte in the said suit and subsequently, ex-parte order was set aside. Now this application is filed to strike of the evidence of the petitioner / plaintiff and to permit her husband to adduce evidence on her behalf on the ground that she is aged about 66 years and is suffering with tuberculosis and grade II Diabetes. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same the present civil revision petition is filed.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner/ plaintiff was examined in chief on 23.12.2020 and through her Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked and
the suit was posted for cross examination. However, despite her appearance before the trial Court, the respondents without cross examining her by getting adjournments dragging on the suit. The petitioner is taking treatment
for tuberculosis and diabetes. Therefore the present application to strike off her evidence and to permit her
2/5
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022
husband to adduce evidence on her behalf is filed. The trial Court dismissed the said application.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has challenged the said order, she is now ready to appear before the trial Court, subjecting herself for cross examination, provided, the respondents shall cross examine her on a particular day, due to her health condition.
5.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record.
6.Though the petitioner has challenged the order
dismissing her application for striking off her evidence and for permitting her husband to adduce evidence on her behalf, during the course of arguments, the petitioner has confined the prayer as above.
7.In view of the limited prayer, this civil revision
petition is disposed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the particular day fixed as by the trial 3/5
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022
Court, subjecting herself for cross examination and the respondents shall cross examine her on that particular day and if the respondents fail to cross examine her on that particular day, the suit will be proceeded further as no cross examination by the respondents. Accordingly, the trial Court shall fix a particular day in consultation with the respondents and the petitioner for her cross examination and proceed with further. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
17.11.2022
dsk
To
The Additional District Munsif, Sankarankovil.
4/5
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
CRP(MD)No.2090 of 2022
17.11.2022
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application to strike off the petitioner's evidence and permit her husband to adduce evidence on her account in a suit for possession should be allowed.
Pattalammal
Karuppasamy
Varalakshmi
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
