Allowed¶29

R.P.Darrmalingam @ a.R.Dharmalingam v. S.Sekar

Madras HC9 Feb 2026A/615/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory application under Order XVI Rule 8 Original Side Rules / Order XXXI Rule 1 / S.151 CPC seeking Advocate Commissioner for cross-examination of ailing 67-year-old plaintiff (PW1) unable to attend court; application ALLOWED notwithstanding respondent's delay-tactic objection; R.V. Gayathri appointed Commissioner; cross-examination to conclude within one month of warrant; parties to co-operate; remuneration Rs.25,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Ms. R.V. Gayathri, Advocate, appointed as Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination/evidence of PW1 in C.S. No.90 of 2023, to be completed within one month from receipt of Commissioner warrant; parties directed to co-operate; remuneration fixed at Rs.25,000/- payable directly to the Commissioner on the first day of recording of evidence. ¶29

R.P.Darrmalingam @ a.R.Dharmalingam Vs S.Sekar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed to record the cross examination of PW1 (the Plaintiff), who was unable to appear before the Court due to his health condition.

¶22

Court's answer

Since the applicant/Plaintiff (PW1) is a senior citizen aged about 67 years suffering from health conditions (medical certificate produced), it is appropriate to allow the application by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record his cross examination.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Ms. R.V. Gayathri, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of PW1 in the main Suit; she is directed to complete the recording of evidence/cross examination within one month from the date of receipt of the Commissioner warrant; the parties are directed to co-operate; the Commissioner's remuneration is fixed at Rs.25,000/-, payable directly on the first day of recording.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal, J.), 09-02-2026 — A No. 615 of 2026 in C.S. No.90 of 2023 (suit for damages and permanent injunction): The Plaintiff, examined as PW1 in part with chief examination completed on 03.07.2025, being a 67-year-old senior citizen suffering from ortho problems, high blood pressure, lung infection and diabetes (medical certificate produced), moved an application under Order XVI Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXI Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to record his cross examination through an Advocate Commissioner. Though the respondent/defendant objected that the application was filed only to delay proceedings, the Court allowed it, appointed Ms. R.V. Gayathri, Advocate, as Commissioner to record the cross examination of PW1 within one month from receipt of the Commissioner warrant, directed the parties to co-operate, and fixed the Commissioner's remuneration at Rs.25,000/-, payable directly on the first day of recording of evidence.

¶1

A No. 615 of 2026 in C.S. No.90 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

A No. 615 of 2026

¶7

in C.S. No.90 of 2023

¶8

R.P.Darrmalingam @ A.R.Dharmalingam

¶9

S/o late M.Ramakrishnan,

¶10

..Applicant(s)

¶11

¶12

S.Sekar S/o Mr.Suyambu NAdar,

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: This application has been filed under Order XVI Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXI Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to Record the cross examination of the Plaintiff as PW1 in the above suit by the Counsel for the defendant at the Plaintiffs residence at Plot No.1379C, Door No.15C, Golden Villa, 6th Street, I Block, Vallar Kudiyeruppu, 18th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 040.

¶15

For Applicant(s): M/s.T.M. Pappiah

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr. V. Manohar

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

A No. 615 of 2026 in C.S. No.90 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application has been filed by the applicant to appoint an

¶22

Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination of PW1 in the above Suit.

¶23

According to the applicant, he is the Plaintiff in the main Suit, which is filed for claiming damages and for permanent injunction and already PW1 was examined in part and the chief examination was completed on 03.07.2025. Due to his health condition, he was unable to appear for cross examination. Therefore, the matter is pending for cross examination of PW1. Since the Plaintiff is aged about 67 years and not being well, suffering from Ortho problems, high blood pressure, lung infection and diabetes, he was unable to appear before this Court for his cross examination. Therefore, he has filed this application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for cross examination of PW1.

¶24

The other side strongly objected to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the witness . According to the respondent, already PW1 was examined in part and he was not present for his cross examination and only to delay the proceedings, this application has been filed by him. There is no merits in this application and hence prayed to dismiss the application.

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

A No. 615 of 2026 in C.S. No.90 of 2023

¶28

Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶29

The applicant is the Plaintiff in the main Suit and already he was examined as PW1 and at the time of cross examination, he was not able to appear before this Court due to his health conditions. The applicant has also produced his medical certificate. There is no dispute that he is a Senior citizen aged about 67 years and therefore, considering the above said reasons, it is appropriate to allow this application by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination of PW1.

¶30

Accordingly, this application is allowed. Ms. R.V. Gayathri, Advocate, Ph. No.95663 92824 is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of the witness PW1 in the main Suit. The learned Advocate Commissioner is directed to complete the recording of evidence, by fixing a particular date for cross examination, within one month from the date of receipt of Commissioner warrant. The parties are also directed to co-operate for the cross examination of PW1. The remuneration of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) and the said amount shall be paid directly to the Commissioner on the first day of recording of evidence.

09-02-2026

MJS

[1/2]

__________ Page3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

A No. 615 of 2026 in C.S. No.90 of 2023