Dismissed¶58

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple v. S.Jadav Chand Kanuga

Madras HC2 Jan 2026OSA/381/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: OSA No. 381 of 2025; CMP No. 32793 of 2025; Madras High Court; Original Side Appeal; Section 92 Code of Civil Procedure; framing of scheme; Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple; Choolai Jain Sangh; trust administration; cross-examination sequence; PW1; collusion; protraction of trial; Advocate Commissioner; Suhrith Parthasarathy; recording of evidence; six-month time limit; adjournment costs Rs. 1,000; Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority; O.S.A. No. 111 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; appeal dismissed with the above observations and directions (Advocate Commissioner appointed for recording evidence; six-month outer limit; adjournment-costs regime). No costs on the appeal. ¶58

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple Vs S.Jadav Chand Kanuga — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/1st defendant should be permitted to continue and complete the cross-examination of PW1 before the 2nd defendant cross-examines PW1, given the appellant's contention that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are acting in collusion.

¶38

Court's answer

Cross-examination of PW1 by the appellant/1st defendant ought to be continued and completed; thereafter the 2nd defendant would have every right to cross-examine PW1.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The evidence already tendered by PW1 and the cross-examination by the 2nd defendant cannot in any manner prejudice the appellant, who has every opportunity to tender his own evidence on all points urged before this Court during trial.

¶40

Key takeaways

The appeal has been filed only to protract the trial proceedings; the Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence contributing to delaying the proceedings.ratio¶41
Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel, is appointed as Advocate Commissioner to assist in the recording of evidence, with a request to bestow personal attention given that the suit is of 2008 and the cross-examination of PW1 is complete only in part.ratio¶49
The remit of the learned Advocate Commissioner extends to recording the evidence of PW1 in its entirety and also that of all other witnesses summoned by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Madras High Court (order by C.V. Karthikeyan J., bench including K. Kumaresh Babu J.) dismisses OSA No. 381 of 2025, which challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 28.10.2025 in O.S. No. 1014 of 2008 — a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff Trust (Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple / Choolai Jain Sangh) seeking framing of a scheme — directing that PW1, then in the witness box, continue to be cross-examined by the appellant/1st defendant. The Court holds that the cross-examination of PW1 already undertaken in part by the 1st defendant ought to be continued and completed, after which the 2nd defendant would have every right to cross-examine; the evidence already tendered and the 2nd defendant's cross-examination cannot prejudice the appellant, who may tender his own evidence on all points during trial. The learned Single Judge had observed that collusion cannot be presumed before evidence is recorded in its entirety. Finding the appeal filed only to protract the trial — an earlier Division Bench direction in O.S.A. No. 111 of 2025 to complete the trial within three months having not been followed — the Court appointed Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy as Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of PW1 in its entirety and of all witnesses summoned by the parties, with an outer limit of six months from uploading of the order; fixed his remuneration at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 50,000/- each from the plaintiff and the appellant); imposed costs of Rs. 1,000/- per adjournment payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority; and dismissed the appeal with no costs.

¶1

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

OSA No. 381 of 2025 and CMP No.32793 of 2025

¶7

Sri Chandraprabha Jain Swetambar Temple Through its Managing Body Sri Choolai Bazaar Jain Sangh @ Shri Choolai Jain Sangh @ Shri Choolai Moortipujak Jain Sangh @ Sri Sangh Choolai Bazaar situated at No.38, Venkatachala Mudali Street Choolai, Chennai 600 112 and its working committee consisting of

¶8

a) Rajendra Kumar Kochar b)Hemchand Vaid c)Tarachand Kochar (died) d)Punamchand Dakalia e)LalchandLunavat alias Milapchand Lunavat (died) f)Sunilkumar Sancheti g)Heeralal Golecha h)Heerachand Nimani i)Rajendrakumar Kanuga

¶9

Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

1.S.Jadav Chand Kanuga 2.Ratan Chand Chhallani

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶15

3.G.Ashok Chand Dakalia

¶16

4.K.Tarachand Golecha

¶17

5.Suresh Chand Jhabak 6.J.Harak Chand Golecha 7.T.Shantilal Golecha 8.Sri Prakash Chand Golecha

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

PRAYER

¶20

To set aside the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in C.S. No. 1014 of 2008.

¶21

For Appellant(s): M/s.P.Sunil For Respondent(s): M/s.P.Prithvi Chopda for M/s.Dipthi Munoth.A (R6)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶24

The appeal is filed against the order dated 28.10.2025 in O.S. No. 1014 of 2008, whereby the leaned Single Judge directed that PW1, who is presently in

¶25

the witness box, shall continue to be cross-examined by the appellant, who is the 1^st defendant in the suit.

¶26

The suit had been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the framing of a scheme. The appellant /1st defendant had filed a written statement objecting to the averments and reasonings set out in the plaint.

¶27

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has continued to be in the administration of the Trust pursuant to the

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶31

orders of the Court. We refrain from elaborating further on the merits, as the matter is pending trial and the parties are presently tendering evidence.

¶32

Be that as it may, the 2^nd respondent /defendant thereafter filed an application to condone the delay in filing the written statement. The delay was condoned and the written statement was taken on record.

¶33

The grievance of the appellant is that, in the written statement of the 2^nd defendant, it has been contended that the 2^nd defendant has no objection for framing of a scheme for the plaintiff Trust. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of such a stand, it ought to be presumed that the plaintiff and 2^nd defendant are acting in collusion and, therefore, the 2^nd defendant should first cross-examine the plaintiff, and only thereafter, the appellant/ 1^st defendant should be permitted to continue with this cross examination.

¶34

This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge, who also pointed out the delay in the progress of the trial and observed that the crossexamination already undertaken by the 1^st defendant should be carried to its logical conclusion and thereafter, the 2^nd defendant would be entitled to crossexamine the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge further observed that during trial, the recording of the evidence should proceed and that the evidence is

¶35

3/7

¶36

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

¶37

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶38

recorded in entirety, it would be for the Court to assess the same in the light of the pleadings and submissions advanced during arguments. Collusion cannot be presumed even before evidence is recorded in its entirety. The trial has to proceed and reach its logical conclusion.

¶39

PW1 is presently in the witness box. He has already been crossexamined in part by the appellant /1^st defendant. We hold that cross examination ought to be continued and completed and thereafter, the 2^nd defendant would have every right to cross examine PW1.

¶40

The appellant /1^st defendant would also have to tender his evidence in due course. The evidence already tendered by PW1 as well as the crossexamination by the 2^nd defendant, cannot in any manner prejudice the appellant. The appellant has every opportunity to tender his evidence on all points that are now urged before this Court during trial.

¶41

We are of the considered opinion that the appeal has been filed only to protract the trial proceedings. We are therefore not inclined to grant any further indulgence contributing to delaying the proceedings. As a matter of fact, even earlier an appeal had been filed and the Division Bench in O.S.A. No.111 of 2025 had observed as follows:-

¶42

4/7

¶43

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

¶44

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶45

“

¶46

“ 21. It is a matter of surprise that the Temple is being run for

¶47

more than a century without a proper Committee to oversee the functioning of the same and it is high time that a Scheme is formulated for its administration. We are given to understand that the matter is presently before the IV Additional Master for trial. Let the trial continue unhindered by any of the observations in this order and be completed within a period of three (3) months from date of uploading of this order in the official website of this Court.”

¶48

The said observation and direction has not been followed.

¶49

In the interest of all the parties, we appoint Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel, having office at No.39, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104, as Advocate Commissioner to assist in the recording of evidence. We would request the learned Advocate Commissioner now appointed to bestow personal attention to the matter, having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2008 and that the cross-examination of PW1 has been completed only in part.

¶50

We hope that the appellant would cooperate with the learned Advocate Commissioner in proceeding further with the cross-examination of PW1 and

¶51

5/7

¶52

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

¶53

OSA No. 381 of 2025

¶54

with the recording of any further evidence on the side of the plaintiff. The remit of the learned Advocate Commissioner shall extend to recording the evidence of the PW1 in its entirety and also that of all other witnesses, who are summoned by the plaintiffs and the defendants. An outer time limit of six months time is given from the date on which this order is uploaded for completion of recording of evidence.

¶55

An initial remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- is fixed for the learned Advocate Commissioner, out of which a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff and the remaining Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the appellant / 1^st defendant.

¶56

During the course of the trial, if either party seeks an adjournment, the

¶57

same shall be granted only upon payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- for every adjournment sought. The costs shall be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

¶58