Allowed

E. Gopal v. E. Rajabather

Madras HC13 Dec 2023CRP/669/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to recall a witness for marking documents. The High Court held that marking documents would not change the suit's character and set aside the lower court's order, directing disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in I.A No. 496 of 2021 was set aside and allowed; the suit is directed to be disposed of within three months.

E. Gopal Vs E. Rajabather — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP. No. 669 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRP No. 669 of 2022 and CMP No. 3420 of 2022

E.Gopal

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.E.Rajabather 2.The District Collector, Tiruvallur Collector Office, Tiruvallur District. 3.The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk Office, Poonamallee Taluk

¶11

....Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2021 made in I.A No. 496 of 2021 in O.S No. 495 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabakar For R1 : Mr.N.Sivaprakash For R2 and R3 : Mr.V.Jeevagindharam

¶14

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

CRP. No. 669 of 2022

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.12.2021 made in I.A No. 496 of 2021 in O.S No. 495 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.

¶19

The petitioner herein filed I.A No. 496 of 2021 in O.S No. 495 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee, to recall the D.W.1 for marking of documents as first defendant side evidence. Considering the submissions on either side, the Trial Court dismissed the said application stating that already sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to mark those documents and to drag on the proceedings the petitioner filed this petition. Challenging the same the petitioner filed this petition.

¶20

Heard the submissions made by the both side counsels.

¶21

Considering the fact of the case, the petitioner's submission is that his mother was already filed a suit for permanent injunction before the same Court as against the plaintiff/first respondent. But now only petitioner received the copy of the said suit. Hence, in order to disprove the plaintiff's/first respondent's claim the petitioner wants to files those documents. This court is of the view that marking of the said document 2

¶22

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

¶23

CRP. No. 669 of 2022

¶24

would not change the character of the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A No. 496 of 2021 in O.S No. 495 of 2014 is set aside. Thus, I.A No. 496 of 2021 is allowed. Further, considering age of the parties, the Trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. No Cost. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

13.12.2023

¶27

pbl

¶28

To 1. The Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

CRP. No. 669 of 2022

¶32

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶33

Pbl

¶34

CRP No. 669 of 2022 and CMP No. 3420 of 2022

¶35

13.12.2023

¶36

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

¶37

E. Gopal v. E. Rajabather

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Gopal v. E. Rajabather

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

Esther Christiana Vs Arun Prasath

Rajathi @ Esther Vs S. Saravanan @ Samuel

Dhanalakshmi Vs Balaji

Sobha Vs Benny

Sarathambal (deceased) Vs Shajathi

R.Sathya Vs Periyasamy (Died) Angathal