Dismissed¶38

Pandi v. Pandiammal

Madras HC9 Jun 2025CRP(MD)/1624/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reopen evidence; further cross-examination of P.W.1; IA Nos.3 and 4/2025 dismissed as not maintainable; burden/onus of proof of medical treatment on plaintiff; settlement deed challenged as null and void; legal heirs of deceased Arumugam; O.S.No.29/2018 Subordinate Judge Virudhunagar; Article 227 Constitution of India; CRP (MD) Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani J.; decided 09/06/2025; revisions dismissed, CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioners; Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No.8417 of 2025) closed; trial Court directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order. ¶38

Pandi Vs Pandiammal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petitions deserve interference against the dismissal of IA Nos.3 and 4/2025 — i.e., whether the petitioners should be permitted to further cross-examine P.W.1 on the medical treatment given to their father, when they had already cross-examined P.W.1.

¶28

Court's answer

It is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the case before the trial Court; the burden to prove the medical treatment given to the parties' father is on the plaintiff. Since the petitioners have already cross-examined P.W.1, and the plaintiff herself suggested the petitioners could examine the concerned doctors, the trial Court rightly dismissed the interlocutory applications as not maintainable.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The orders passed in the interlocutory applications (IA Nos.3 and 4/2025) need not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.29/2018 (Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar), against the order dated 21.03.2025 in IA Nos.3 and 4/2025 dismissing their applications to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 (the plaintiff) for further cross-examination on the medical treatment allegedly taken by the parties' late father (MMHRC for ten days; Thiruvengadam Hospitals for three months): Held, dismissing the revisions, that the burden of proving the pleaded hospital treatment rests on the plaintiff; the defendants had already cross-examined P.W.1 and could examine the concerned doctors; the trial Court therefore rightly held the interlocutory applications not maintainable, and the orders called for no interference. The trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by any of the observations; connected CMP(MD) No.8417 of 2025 closed; no costs. (M. Dhandapani, J., order dated 09/06/2025.)

¶1

CRP(MD). No.1624 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 09/06/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRP (MD). Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2025 and CMP(MD) No.8417 of 2025

¶7

1.Pandi 2. Ponnupandi ... Petitioners/

Defendants 2 and 3

1.Pandiammal

... Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶12

Arumugam (died)

¶13

2.Rajeswari @ Muniammal

¶14

3.Mareeswari ... Respondents/ defendants 4&5

¶15

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and ex order dated 21.03.2025 passed in IA No.3/2025 in O.S.No.29/2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

CRP(MD). No.1624 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioners : Ms.P.Malini

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

The civil revision petition is filed against the fair and ex order dated 21.03.2025 passed in IA Nos.3 and 4/2025 in O.S.No.29/2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶22

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶23

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in OS No.29/2018. The first respondent, who is the sister of the plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration declaring that the settlement deed/document executed by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 is null and void. The petitioners completed chief and cross examination and after chief and cross examination of P.W.1, the petitioners filed IA Nos.3 and 4/2025 to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for further cross-examination for the treatment given to P.W.1's father for his

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

CRP(MD). No.1624 of 2025

¶27

ailment. Since the petitioners are in Chennai, they were not able to instruct their counsel to further cross-examine P.W.1. For obtaining the medical records for the aforesaid treatment undergone by the petitioner's father and the nature of ailment, the cross-examination of P.W.1 is necessary and hence, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025. However, the said petitions were dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that since the petitioners herein are also the legal heirs of the deceased, the petitioners could have known the medical treatment undergone by their father. P.W.1/plaintiff deposed during crossexamination that their father suffered illness and took treatment at MMHRC for ten days and Thiruvengadam Hospitals for three months. Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners were in Chennai owing to their avocation, they could not thoroughly cross-examine P.W.1 and hence, it is necessary to crossexamine P.W.1 towards the medical treatment given to their father. Hence, prays for interference.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

CRP(MD). No.1624 of 2025

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and I have also perused the materials available on record.

¶33

The petitioners/defendants and the first respondent/plaintiff are

¶34

the legal heirs of the deceased Arumugam. It is alleged that, the petitioners' father executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners and the same was questioned by the plaintiff before the trial Court. Though the first respondent alleged that her father took treatment in the hospital, for which, the petitioners herein want to cross-examine P.W.1, it is for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the case before the trial Court. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that since the petitioners are her brothers and the legal heirs of the deceased father and if they have any questions, they could examine the concerned doctors. When the petitioners have already cross-examined P.W.1 and the burden to prove the medical treatment given to their father is on the plaintiff, the trial Court rightly dismissed the interlocutory applications as they are not maintainable. Hence, the orders passed in the interlocutory applications need not be interfered with.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

CRP(MD). No.1624 of 2025

¶38

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. However the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR

¶40

¶41

1.The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar

¶42

2.VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45