Allowed¶30

Raghu Ganapathy v. Thara Rajendran and another

Madras HC5 Feb 2026A/528/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Video conference cross examination; Order XIV Rule 8 O.S.Rules; Section 151 CPC; plaintiff in USA; P.W.1; Ex.P.1 to P.18; incomplete cross examination; Madras High Court original side application; C.S.No.219 of 2022; examination of witness by video conferencing; fair chance; no objection from defendants; P. Dhanabal J.; 05-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the applicant/plaintiff to appear and complete his cross examination through video conference, subject to the existing Rules. ¶30

Raghu Ganapathy Vs Thara Rajendran and another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

A No. 528 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A No. 528 of 2026 in C.S.No.219 of 2022

¶7

Raghu Ganapathy S/o.Late Dr.M.V.Ganapathy, Flat No.C, New No.6, Old No.23, Ragaviah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Communication Address PO Box 420553, Houston, TX 77242 USA.

¶8

..Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

Thara Rajendran W/o.E.Rajendran, Flat No.A1, First Floor, New No.6, Old No.23, Ragaviah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, USA Address: 7515 Moore House Ct, Manassas VA 20111 USA.

¶11

G.Ravi Krishnan S/o.Late Dr.M.V.Ganapathy, 38 St Johns Road, Sivanchetty Garden, Bangalore 560 042.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 CPC to permit the Applicant/Plaintiff to complete his cross examination through video conferencing.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

A No. 528 of 2026

¶18

For Applicant(s): Mr.S.Thanka Sivan

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.Pranav for Mr.Rahul Balaji for R1 Mr.S.Kausik for R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application has been filed by the applicant to permit the applicant to complete his cross examination through video conference.

¶22

According to the applicant, he is the plaintiff in the main suit and he was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits, Ex.P.1 to P.18. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for cross examination and the cross examination was completed in-part, subsequently, the case was adjourned at request of the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants. Now, the applicant is in USA, therefore, unable to appear in-person for cross examination, hence this application.

¶23

The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 have no serious objection to allow the present application.

¶24

Considering the above said reasons and the reasons stated in the

¶25

affidavit filed in support of the petition and in order to give a fair chance to the

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

A No. 528 of 2026

¶29

applicant to complete his cross examination and now, the applicant is in USA, it is appropriate to allow the application and the applicant is permitted to appear through video conference subject to the existing Rules.

¶30

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶31

05-02-2026

¶32

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ssd

¶33

__________ Page3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

A No. 528 of 2026