Dismissed¶29

Venkatesa Pillai (Died) 1. v. Muthukrishnan v Moses (Died) 1. Shanthi Damodaran

Madras HC6 Nov 2025CRP/2663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 Constitution of India; Madras High Court civil revision; re-opening evidence; recalling defence witness DW1; second/fresh application after suit transferred to newly formed District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram; vague allegations in affidavit; new counsel's advice; earlier application IA No. 295 of 2017 rejected and confirmed in CRP No. 295 of 2017 (dismissed 14.03.2024); bare injunction suit of 1983 pending more than four decades; time-bound disposal within three months; CRPs dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed, and the trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.106 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. ¶29

Venkatesa Pillai (Died) 1. v. Muthukrishnan Vs Moses… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitions to re-open the case and re-call DW1, supported only by vague allegations without specific reasons, warranted interference under Article 227 with the trial Court's order dismissing them. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

On the vague allegations in the affidavit, unsupported by any specific reasons, the petition to re-open the case and re-call DW1 cannot be ordered, particularly as a similar earlier application was dismissed and confirmed in revision; the petitioners made out no case for interfering with the impugned order.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The bare-injunction suit of the year 1983, pending for more than four decades, is an exceptional case warranting fixation of an outer time limit; the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (S. Sounthar, J.) — C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025, decided 06.11.2025. Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the fair and decreetal order dated 12.02.2025 in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2024 (District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram), by which the trial Court refused to re-open the case and re-call DW1 in a bare-injunction suit of the year 1983. Held: the affidavit in support of the fresh applications disclosed no specific reasons — only that the petitioners engaged a new counsel who advised putting some new questions to DW1 — and an earlier application (IA No. 295 of 2017) had already been dismissed by the trial Court, with its dismissal confirmed by this Court in CRP No. 295 of 2017 on 14.03.2024; hence no case existed for interfering with the impugned order. Both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. Taking into account that the suit seeks only a bare injunction and has remained pending for more than four decades, the Court deemed it an exceptional case warranting fixation of an outer time limit and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

¶1

C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025 and C.M.P.No. 15058 of 2025

¶7

Venkatesa Pillai (died) 1.V.Muthukrishnan 2.Durairaj Damodaran (died) 3.Vijaya @ Kokila 4.Vanitha Shree

¶8

.. Petitioners in both CRPs

¶9

¶10

Moses (died) 1.Shanthi Damodaran Munusamy Nadar (died)

¶11

.. Respondents in both CRPs

¶12

Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.02.2025 in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate at Pallavaram.

¶13

(In both CRPs) For Petitioners : Mr.P.Kothandaraman

¶14

For Respondents : Ms.C.Harini for Mr.M.V.Seshachari COMMON ORDER

¶15

The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the

¶16

order passed by the Court below dismissing the petitions filed by

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025

¶20

DW1.

¶21

the petitioners / plaintiffs seeking to re-open the case and re-call DW1.

¶22

The petitioners herein filed a suit for bare injunction. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 1983 and since the defendants side evidence was closed on 07.3.2017, the suit is posted for arguments. It is also seen from the records that earlier petitioners filed an application in IA No. 295 of 2017 to re-open case and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred a revision in CRP No. 295 of 2017 before this Court and the same was also dismissed on 14.03.2024. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the newly formed District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.

¶23

Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner filed yet another application to re-open the case and recall DW1. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions to re-open the case and recall DW1, petitioners have not given any specific reasons. The reasons given by them is that they engaged a new counsel and as per the advice tendered by the new counsel, they wanted to put some new question to DW1.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025

¶27

Based on the vague allegations made by petitioners in the affidavit, petition to re-open case and re-call DW1, cannot be ordered, especially in the light of the facts narrated above that, similar application filed by the petitioners was dismissed and confirmed by this Court in the revision. The petitioners have not made out any case for interfering with the order impugned in these petitions.

¶28

Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand

¶29

dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that the prayer in the suit is only for bare injunction and the suit is of the year 1983, which is pending for more than four decades, this Court feels that this is one of exceptional case warranting fixation of outer time limit for disposal. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

06.11.2025

¶32

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

¶33

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.Nos. 2663 & 2667 of 2025

¶37