Dismissed

Arasi, v. a. Abdul Khader

Madras HC21 Nov 2022CRP(MD)/2159/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to recall a landlord witness. The High Court held that since the petitioner failed to assign reasons or identify material facts requiring elucidation before the second evidence phase, there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were dismissed with no costs.

Arasi, Vs a. Abdul Khader — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 21.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.10015 and 10016 of 2022

Arasi

... Petitioner

A.Abdul Khader ... Respondents in both CRPs

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order 05.09.2022 made in IA.Nos.2 and 3 of 202 in RLTOP No.59 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli and allow the above civil revision petitions.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

These civil revision petitions are filed as

¶15

against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli dated 05.09.2022 in IA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2022 in RLTOP.No.59 of 2020.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶17

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶18

2.The RLTOP was filed by the respondent/

¶19

landlord for eviction as against the petitioner on the ground of owners occupation. The respondent / landlord PW1 was examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. Thereafter the respondent/ landlord was also cross examined by the petitioner on 29.07.2022. The case was posted for further evidence of the respondent / landlord on 03.08.2022, 05.08.2022 and 11.08.2022. The evidence of the respondent/ landlord

¶20

was closed on 11.08.2022. For the petitioner's side evidence the case was posted on 16.08.2022, 22.08.2022 and 25.08.2022. At this stage, the petitioner / tenant

¶21

has filed the present applications to reopen and recall PW1 for further cross examination in connection with

¶22

some important facts. The trial Court has rejected the applications. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed.

¶23

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶24

submits that an opportunity must be provided to the

¶25

petitioner to cross examine PW1 on certain facts, which were omitted to be asked during his cross examination

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶27

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶28

on 22.08.2022. The judgment relied on the trial Court

¶29

is also not relevant to the issue. Further Order 18 Rule 17 enables the Courts to recall the witness at any stage.

¶30

4.This Court considered the submission of the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.

¶31

5.The respondent / landlord was examined in the

¶32

month of July 2022 and the petitioner has also cross examined him on 29.07.2022. Thereafter the case was adjourned nearly for six times and the respondent side evidence was closed. At that time the petitioner has filed the present interlocutory applications to reopen and recall PW1 for the purpose of re-examining him. The petitioner has not assigned reason and has not stated what are the material facts, which are to be elucidated through PW1. In the absence of any such material this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.

¶33

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

¶34

3/5

¶35

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶36

B.PUGALENDHI,J.

¶37

dsk

¶38

6.The civil revision petitions are dismissed.

¶39

No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition are also dismissed.

21.11.2022

dsk

I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

¶44

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

¶45

4/5

¶46

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶47

B.PUGALENDHI.,J

¶48

dsk

¶49

CRP(MD)Nos.2159 and 2160 of 2022

¶50

21.11.2022

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Arasi, v. a. Abdul Khader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arasi, v. a. Abdul Khader

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

K.R. Natarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

S.K.J.Satheesh, Vs the Principal Chief Manager

Kavitha, Vs Dhinakar Babu

Gandhi, Vs Rajasekar

Kalingaraj, Vs Lakshmi alias Muthulakshmi

S. Lakshmanan, Vs K. Gurusamy