M. Ganapathy Vs D. Rajasekar

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of dismissal dated 07.04.2025 passed in M.P.No.3/2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.305/2022 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.G.Chandrasekaran For Respondents: Ms.B.Aparna Sundar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the

¶16

impugned order, dated 07.04.2025 passed by the XI Small Causes Court,

¶17

Chennai in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.305 of 2022.

¶18

Page No.1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

CRP No. 2087 of 2025

¶21

The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords.

¶22

The respondents have filed R.L.T.O.P.No.305 of 2022 against the petitioner seeking eviction. During the pendency of the said RLTOP, M.P.No.3 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner seeking to summon and examine the 2^nd respondent, who is the wife of the 1^st respondent as a witness. Under the impugned order, the said MP filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there is no necessity for the petitioner to examine the 2^nd respondent as a witness and it is for the petitioner to prove that the document claimed by the petitioner to have been executed by the 2^nd respondent is a genuine document.

¶23

Admittedly, the petitioner has been permitted to cross-examine the witness of the respondents. The 1^st respondent has already been examined as a witness in support of the petitioner’s case for eviction. The 1^st respondent has also been cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel. At this stage, the petitioner has chosen to file M.P.No.3 of 2024 seeking to summon and examine the 2^nd respondent as a witness.

¶24

____________ Page No.2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

CRP No. 2087 of 2025

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the following authorities in respect of her contention that a party cannot summon the opposite party as a witness :-

¶28

(i) Kalliyara Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3878 ;

¶29

(ii) Kaliaperumal Vs. Pankajavalli & 2 Ors. reported in 1991 1 L.W. 660 .

¶30

In both the aforesaid decisions, the High Court of Kerala as well as the High Court of Madras has held that a party cannot compel the opposite party to be examined as a witness. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the alleged agreement said to have been executed by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the petitioner dated 01.04.2019. She would submit that on the face of it, it can be conclusively established that the said document is a fabricated document as the date of the stamp paper is post dated from the date of the alleged

¶31

agreement.

¶32

____________ Page No.3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

CRP No. 2087 of 2025

¶35

This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respondents’ contentions before this Court. However, as seen from the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that a party cannot compel the opposite party to be examined as a witness. Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking cross-examination of the 2^nd respondent as a witness. Admittedly, the 2^nd respondent is the wife of the 1^st respondent and is a party to the said RLTOP. The ground raised by the petitioner in this revision can very well be raised by the petitioner at the time of arguments in the RLTOP. In fact, even though the RLTOP is a summary proceedings, the petitioner has been granted permission to cross-examine the respondents’ witness. RLTOP proceedings has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In fact, the legislation also provides for a time frame within which RLTOP proceedings has to be disposed of. Therefore, the question of interfering with the impugned order through this revision does not arise.

¶36

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions,

¶37

____________ Page No.4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

CRP No. 2087 of 2025

¶40

which includes the grounds raised in this revision at the time of final arguments in R.L.T.O.P.No.305 of 2022. The interim stay earlier granted by this Court shall stand vacated. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

01-07-2026

¶42

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

¶43

sp

¶44

To

¶45

The XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶46

____________ Page No.5 of 6