Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by the Sankarankovil Municipality under Article 226 seeking to recall a witness to present evidence of a deed gifted to the respondent. The Court held the petitioner could have had a witness mark the document instead of recalling PW1.
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.
C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.17351 of 2024
Sankarankovil Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, Thiruvenkadam Road, Sankarankovil Cusba, Sankarankovil Taluk. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Vivekanandhan
... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 13.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajarajan
1/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil.
2. The suit in O.S.No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Sankarankovil was filed by the respondent seeking for the relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction to remove the road laid on the second schedule of the property.
3. According to the revision petitioner, the application in I.A.No. 10 of 2023 is for re-calling P.W.1 for further cross-examination for marking a document gifted by the predecessor in title of the respondent to the Municipality. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said application. Against which, the present revision is preferred.
4. The alleged gift deed claimed by the revision petitioner was executed in favour of the defendant. While so, the revision petitioner can
2/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024
mark the above document through their witness instead of recalling P.W.1 for confronting the above document.
5. With this observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
04.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To
The Subordinate Court, Sankarankovil.
3/4
C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
BTR
Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.3045 of 2024
04.12.2024
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of IA No.10 of 2023, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to recall a witness, deserves allowance.
Whether a witness can mark a gifted document instead of unnecessarily recalling a cross-examination witness for confrontation.
Sankarankovil Municipality
Vivekanandhan
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
