Dismissed¶19

Ethiyas alias Imthiyas v. P.Ganesan

Madras HC23 Oct 2025CRP(MD)/2787/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Madurai Bench; CRP(MD) No.2787 of 2025; K. Kumaresh Babu J.; Article 227 Constitution of India; Ethiyas Alias Imthiyas v. P.Ganesan; I.A.No.5 of 2025; O.S.No.615 of 2013; Principal District Munsif Court Thirumangalam; order dated 23.09.2025; recall P.W.5; reopen witness; adjournment; repeated adjournments; protraction of trial; correction of paragraph 8 of order; fresh order copy; decision date 27.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the registry was directed to delete and replace paragraph 8 of the order and issue a fresh order copy after corrections. ¶19

Ethiyas alias Imthiyas Vs P.Ganesan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the registry was directed to delete and replace paragraph 8 of the order and issue a fresh order copy after corrections.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.615 of 2013 (Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam), dismissing the petitioner's application to recall/reopen P.W.5, should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

This Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025 dismissing the application to reopen P.W.5.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petition filed by the petitioner to reopen P.W.5 had been rightly negatived by the Court below, the case having been posted for trial and repeatedly adjourned.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since I.A.No.5 of 2025 had been mentioned as an application for adjournment, the registry was directed to delete Paragraph No.8 of the order and replace it with corrected text recording that the application sought to reopen P.W.5.ratio¶19
Registry was directed to issue a fresh order copy to the parties after carrying out the necessary corrections.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (CRP(MD) No.2787 of 2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, K. Kumaresh Babu, J., order dated 27.10.2025. The matter was listed for mention because paragraph 8 of the order had described I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.615 of 2013 (Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam) as an application for adjournment, whereas it was in fact an application to recall/reopen P.W.5, dismissed by the Court below on 23.09.2025 as the suit had been repeatedly adjourned and the reopening was sought only to protract the proceedings. The Court found no reason to interfere with that order, endorsed that the petition to reopen had been rightly negatived, directed the registry to delete paragraph 8 and substitute corrected wording, and to issue a fresh order copy to the parties.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.2787 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 27/10/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CRP(MD). No.2787 of 2025

¶7

Ethiyas Alias Imthiyas ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

P.Ganesan, S/o. Late. Pandithevar, Melakkal Main Road, Keelamathur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER :-

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025 in O.S.No.615 of 2013 dated 23.09.2025 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : P.Yasmin Begum, Advocate.

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

CRP(MD). No.2787 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The matter has been listed today(27.10.2025), under the caption for being mentioned on the ground that this Court in paragraph No.8 of the order had recorded that I.A.No.5 of 2025 had been filed seeking an adjournment of the proceedings.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would indicate that I.A.No.5 of 2025 had been filed to recall P.W.5 in the said matter. The Court below had dismissed the application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 on the ground that the suit had been repeatedly adjourned. At this stage, such an application filed for reopening P.W.5 is only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, on merits the application was dismissed.

¶19

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2025, however, I.A.No.5 of 2025 had been mentioned as an application for adjournment, in view of the same, registry is directed to delete Paragraph No.8 of the order and replace the same as follows:

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

CRP(MD). No.2787 of 2025

¶23

" 8. I.A.No.5 of 2025 had been filed seeking to reopen P.W.5 for

¶24

the reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is also to be noted by this Court from the extract uploaded that the case was posted for trial and had been repeatedly adjourned. A perusal of the order made in I.A.No.5 of 2025 dated 23.09.2025 would indicate that the petition filed by the petitioner to reopen had been rightly negatived by the Court below ."

¶25