Defendants in a 2013 permanent injunction suit over a common passage challenged dismissal of their applications to reopen and recall PW1 for further cross examination. The High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the trial court order, permitted cross examination on a fixed date, and directed disposal within three months.
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.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024 and CMP.No.1264 of 2024
1.M.Rajendran
2.R.Mukundan 3.R.Sivakumar ... petitioners
Vs
Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petition have been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal orer of Principal District Munsif, Tiruvallur in IA.Nos.6 and 7 of 2023 in OS.No.237 of 2013 respectively dated 18.10.2023.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.V.Varges Amal Raja
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners herein are the defendants in OS.No.237 of 2013 and
the plaintiffs are brothers of the defendants.
Page 1 of 5
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
common passage between the plaintiffs and the defendants. IA.Nos.6 and 7 of 2023 have been filed to reopen and recall for further cross examination of PW1/plaintiff by the defendant which was dismissed for the reason the petitioner already cross examined PW1 for three days at length and thereafter PW2 examined and cross examined by the defendants. The reopen and recall petitions filed for the purpose of protracting the proceedings.
Page 2 of 5
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
restraining the defendants/petitioners their men and their family members usage of common passage. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants/petitioners filed petitions for reopen and recall the further cross examination of PW1.
counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
Page 3 of 5
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
in the interest of justice, further it is a common passage dispute between the siblings.
08.04.2024
tsh Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvallur.
Page 4 of 5
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
tsh
CRP.Nos.269 & 272 of 2024
08.04.2024
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's dismissal of petitions to reopen and recall PW1 for further cross examination should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Rajendran
R.Mukundan
R.Sivakumar
M.Veera Raghavan
V.Arun
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
