K.P.Balasubramanian v. K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others

Madras HC3 Jan 2025A/6487/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (A.A. Nakkiran, J.), order dated 03.01.2025 in A.Nos.6487 & 6488 of 2024 in C.S.No.567 of 2017: first defendant's applications to re-open plaintiff-side evidence and re-call plaintiff-side evidence for cross-examination allowed; evidence before learned Additional Master from 03.02.2025; cross-examination of PW1 to conclude within two weeks thereafter. No statutory provisions or precedents discussed; no costs or quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

A.Nos.6487 & 6488 of 2024 allowed; Registry directed to list the suit before the learned Additional Master for recording evidence on 03.02.2025; learned Additional Master directed to complete cross-examination of PW1 within two weeks thereafter. ¶¶11

K.P.Balasubramanian Vs K.P.Ramachandran and 8 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applications A.No.6487 of 2024 (to re-open the plaintiff's side evidence for cross-examination) and A.No.6488 of 2024 (to re-call the plaintiff's side evidence) filed by the applicant/1st defendant ought to be allowed, notwithstanding the respondents' objection that they were belated and filed only to prolong the suit.

¶¶3

Court's answer

Both applications are allowed: the court recorded satisfaction with the reasons stated in the supporting affidavits and granted the opportunity in order to enable the applicant to prove his case, permitting re-opening and re-calling of the plaintiff's side evidence for cross-examination.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Consequential directions: the Registry is to list the matter before the learned Additional Master for recording evidence on 03.02.2025, and the learned Additional Master is to complete the process of cross-examination of PW1 within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory applications filed by the applicant/1st defendant in C.S.No.567 of 2017 — A.No.6487 of 2024 to re-open the plaintiff's side evidence for cross-examination and A.No.6488 of 2024 to re-call the plaintiff's side evidence — were allowed by A.A. Nakkiran, J., by order dated 03.01.2025. The court held itself satisfied with the reasons in the supporting affidavits and allowed the applications to give the applicant an opportunity to prove his case, despite the respondents' contention that the applications were belated and intended only to prolong the suit. The Registry was directed to list the matter before the learned Additional Master for recording evidence on 03.02.2025, with the cross-examination of PW1 to be completed within two weeks thereafter.

¶1

A.Nos.6487 & 6488 of 2024 in C.S.No.567 of 2017

¶2

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶3

A.No.6487 of 2024 has been filed to re-open the plaintiffs side evidence for cross examination by the applicant/1^st defendant.

¶4

A.No.6488 of 2024 has been filed to re-call the plaintiffs side evidence fro cross examination by the applicant/1^st defendant.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the documents in question are central to the issues in dispute and their proper examination and verification are essential for the just adjudication of the case. He further submitted that the examination of the plaintiff will facilitate a clear understanding of the plaintiff's position vis-a-vis the documents, including their authenticity and relevancy. He further submitted that the balance of convenience favours the applicant/1st defendant as the cross-examination is vital for ensuring a fair opportunity for the applicant to challenge the veracity of claims of the plaintiff.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has filed these applications only with a view to indefinitely prolong the above suit. Further, the applicant has not mention any reason for inordinate delay in

¶7

bringing the said documents before this court. He further submitted that when https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶9

gv the first respondent entered the box and let in evidence on 01.11.2019, the applicant protracted the case for several years by seeking adjournments. He filed these applications only with a view to drag the above suit. Further, the applicant was already examined in chief and thereafter cross examined by his learned counsel. Hence, he strongly opposed to allow these applications.

¶10