Dismissed¶67

V.Selvi v. v.Sonaimuthu

Madras HC22 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1942/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 revision; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani J.; Sub Judge Sivagangai; O.S.No.52 of 2019; O.S.No.266 of 2020; I.A.Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 of 2025; Order XVI Rule 2 CPC; Section 151 CPC; reopening of evidence; cross-examination of defendant's husband whose name the disputed document bears; hearing impairment witness; assistants or interpreters; declaration and permanent injunction; expedition direction to dispose suit within one year; dismissal of civil revision petitions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revision petitioner; she is at liberty to seek assistants or interpreters while cross-examining her husband; the trial Court is directed to dispose of O.S.Nos.52 of 2019 and 266 of 2020 within one year; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P(MD)Nos.11147, 11149, 11151 and 11153 of 2025) closed.

V.Selvi Vs v.Sonaimuthu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 22.04.2025 of the learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai allowing the plaintiffs' applications in I.A.Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 of 2025 (in O.S.Nos.52 of 2019 and 266 of 2020) to reopen the defendant-side evidence and cross-examine the revision petitioner's husband were liable to be interfered with in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

Court's answer

The disputed document relied upon by the plaintiff admittedly stands in the name of the petitioner's husband, R.Vijayakumar, and therefore the trial Court was justified in allowing the plaintiff's application to summon and examine him as a witness.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

A claimed hearing ailment of the witness is no ground to oppose his cross-examination; such a difficulty must be ventilated before the trial Court by seeking assistants or interpreters.

¶63

Key takeaways

The High Court was not inclined to interfere with what it characterised as the just and reasonable order passed by the trial Court allowing the applications.ratio¶63
Considering that the suits are of the years 2019 and 2020, the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suits on merits and in accordance with law within one year from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶63
All four Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed; the petitioner remains at liberty to seek assistants or interpreters while cross-examining her husband; there shall be no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) | Single Judge: M. Dhandapani, J. | 22.07.2025 | C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025 (common order) | Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 22.04.2025 of the learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai in I.A.Nos.2, 6, 7 and 3 of 2025 in O.S.Nos.52 of 2019 and 266 of 2020 (suits for declaration and permanent injunction), whereby the plaintiffs' applications under Order XVI Rule 2 and Section 151 of CPC to reopen the defendant-side evidence and cross-examine the revision petitioner's husband were allowed. Held: the disputed document stands in the name of the husband (R.Vijayakumar); a claimed hearing ailment is no bar to his cross-examination and must be raised before the trial Court by seeking assistants or interpreters; revision petitions dismissed, no costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed; trial Court directed to dispose of the suits within one year.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD) Nos.11147, 11149, 11151 and 11153 of 2025

¶7

C.R.P(MD) No.1942 of 2025:

¶8

V.Selvi ... Revision Petitioner/ Respondent/Defendant Vs.

¶9

V.Sonaimuthu S/o. Vedappan, Represented his Power Agent and wife, Anusiya, Pudukkulam Village, Vempattur Post, Michealpattanam, Sivagangai Taluk and District.

¶10

... Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.266 of 2020 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai.

¶12

C.R.P(MD) No.1943 of 2025:

¶13

V.Selvi

¶14

... Revision Petitioner/

¶15

1^st Respondent/

¶16

1^st Defendant

¶17

Vs.

¶18

1/7

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶21

V.Kannan, S/o. Velusamy, Represented his Power Agent and wife, K.Indira, 5/28, Melur Road, Kamarajar Colony, Sivagangai Town and Taluka, Sivagangai District.

¶22

... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶23

Dhanalakshmi

¶24

... 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/

¶25

2^nd Defendant

¶26

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.52 of 2019 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai.

¶27

C.R.P(MD) No.1944 of 2025:

¶28

V.Selvi

¶29

... Revision Petitioner/ 1^st Respondent/

¶30

1^st Defendant

¶31

Vs.

¶32

V.Kannan, S/o. Velusamy, Represented his Power Agent and wife, K.Indira, 5/28, Melur Road, Kamarajar Colony, Sivagangai Town and Taluka, Sivagangai District.

¶33

... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶34

Dhanalakshmi

¶35

... 2^nd Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent/

¶36

2^nd Defendant

¶37

2/7

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶40

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2025 in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in O.S.No.52 of 2019 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai.

¶41

C.R.P(MD) No.1945 of 2025:

¶42

V.Selvi

¶43

... Revision Petitioner/ Respondent/Defendant Vs.

¶44

V.Sonaimuthu S/o.Vedappan, Represented his Power Agent and wife, Anusiya, Pudukkulam Village, Vempattur Post, Michealpattanam, Sivagangai Taluk and District.

¶45

... Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶46

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.266 of 2020 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai.

¶47

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan (in all C.R.Ps)

¶48

COMMON ORDER

¶49

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders dated

¶50

22.04.2025 in I.A.Nos.2, 6, 7 and 3 of 2025 in O.S.Nos.52 of 2019 and 266 of

¶51

2020, respectively on the file of learned Sub Judge, Sivagangai.

¶52

3/7

¶53

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

¶54

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶55

2.The petitioner in all these Civil Revision Petitions is the defendant and

¶56

first defendant in the respective suits in O.S.Nos.52 of 2019 and 266 of 2020. The plaintiff filed the suits for declaration and permanent injunction. After closing the evidence on the side of the defendants, the plaintiff filed applications in I.A.Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 of 2025 for reopening and cross examination of defendant's side witnesses under Order XVI Rule 2 and Section 151 of CPC. The said applications were allowed. Challenging the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

¶57

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present applications are filed by the petitioner on the sole ground that the petitioner has not given correct answer while he was examined as D.W.1 and hence, the husband of the petitioner has to be examined as one of the witnesses. The petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner is aged about 68 years and he is having some hearing ailments, hence, he might not be able to respond to the questions posed to him. Even then, the trial Curt has allowed the applications filed by the plaintiffs and the same is not sustainable.

¶58

4.Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶59

4/7

¶60

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

¶61

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶62

5.The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the plaintiff in the original suits filed the present interlocutory applications for reopening the evidence on the side of the defendant and cross examine the husband of the petitioner as one of the witnesses. Admittedly, the disputed document relied upon by the plaintiff stands in the name of the husband of the petitioner, namely R.Vijayakumar. Hence, the applications filed by the plaintiff for summoning the husband of the petitioner were allowed.

¶63

6.The claim of the petitioner is that her husband is having some hearing ailments and there might be some impediments in cross examining him. If really the petitioner's husband is having some hearing problem, it has to be ventilated before the trial Court by way of seeking assistants or interpreters while cross examining him in respect of the alleged document stands in his name. Instead, the petitioner cannot oppose for cross examining her husband as one of the witnesses. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the just and reasonable order passed by the trial Court. However, considering the fact that the suits are of the year 2019 and 2020, respectively, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suits on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

5/7

¶65

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

¶66

C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1942 to 1945 of 2025

¶67

7.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The

¶68

petitioner is at liberty to seek for any assistants or interpreters while cross examining the husband of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶69

22.07.2025

¶70

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes / No ta

¶71

¶72