Disposed

Sankarraj v. Sundarraj

Madras HC24 Jan 2023CRP(MD)/121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to recall a plaintiff for marking an RTI document. The court held the defendant could mark the document himself, directed the trial court to recall the defendant, and expedited the suit conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was allowed to mark the document through himself; the trial court was directed to recall the petitioner and conclude the suit within two months.

Sankarraj Vs Sundarraj — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023 and CMP(MD)No.595 of 2023

Sankarraj

... Petitioner

versus

Sundarraj

¶11

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

The Thasildar, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶14

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.11.2022 made in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.256 of 2014 on the file of the learned

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶18

Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar For R1 : Mr.S.Mahesh Babu

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No. 256 of 2014 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

¶22

The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.256 of 2014, which is pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai. He filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.7 of 2022 in O.S.No.256 of 2014 to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking an additional document, which he said to have obtained under the Right to Information Act. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by its fair and decreetal order dated 17.11.2022. Aggrieved over that, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶27

though the suit was filed in the year 2014, he obtained a document under the Right to Information Act from the Revenue Officials recently and therefore, the said document has to be marked necessarily through P.W.1.

¶28

Mr.S.Mahesh Babu, learned counsel, who takes notice for the first respondent, submits that the suit in O.S.No.256 of 2014 has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for bare injunction and it is now at the stage of arguments. He further submits that the document, said to have been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, need not be marked through P.W.1(plaintiff) and it can be marked through the petitioner/first defendant, for which, he is not having any objection.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶32

This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused

¶33

the materials available on record.

¶34

The petitioner claims that he has obtained a document under Right to Information Act from the Revenue Officials, which are necessary for just adjudication of the suit proceedings. Therefore, he filed the above interlocutory application in I.A.No.7 of 2022 to recall P.W.1 and mark the document through P.W.1.

¶35

It is not necessary that the petitioner has to mark the document

¶36

through P.W.1 and he can mark the document through himself.

¶37

Since the suit is at the stage of arguments, the trial Court, namely, Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai, shall recall the evidence of first defendant and allow him to mark the relevant document. The first respondent/plaintiff shall cross examine the first defendant on the same day. The Trial Court shall endeavour to

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶41

conclude the suit proceedings in O.S.No.256 of 2014, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No

¶43

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

24.01.2023

¶45

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶46

¶47

The learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai.

¶48

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶52

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶53

ogy

¶54

CRP(PD)(MD)No.121 of 2023

¶55

24.01.2023

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

Sankarraj v. Sundarraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankarraj v. Sundarraj

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

Vairavan Vs Suguna Devi

R.Gopinath Vs D.Mahalakshmi

Balamurugan Vs Ranjitha

Arulprakasa Sundarraj Vs Mukkalampadu Thuya Viyakula Annai Aalayam

M.Raja, Vs K.P.P.Athiyarajan

Maharajan, Vs Mathubala