C.R.P.No.2733 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.08.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.R.P.Nos.2733 & 2735 of 2023

and

C.M.P.Nos.16854 & 16867 of 2023

1. Mrs.U.Manonmani

2. Mr.U.Siva Kumar

... Petitioners

Vs.

S.Banumathi

... Respondent

Prayer in CRP.No.2733 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree

dated 15.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.4856 of 2019 on

the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

Prayer in CRP.No.2735 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree

dated 15.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.4856 of 2019 on

the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

1/8

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

C.R.P.No.2733 of 2023

For Petitioners : M/s.A.V.Bharathi

For Mr.S.Yuvaraj

For Respondent : Mr.A.M.Krishnamoorthy

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order

and decree dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Learned IV Additional City

Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.4 of 2023 and I.A.No.5 of 2023 in

O.S.No.4856 of 2019.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.4856 of

2019. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition and

permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. When the suit was

pending, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 and I.A.No.5 of 2023 to

reopen PW1's evidence and recall PW1 for further cross examination

respectively. It was stated in the applications that, originally, the suit

property belonged to late Balakrishnan. The 1^st petitioner is residing in

the suit property for more than 30 years. The 2^nd petitioner is also

residing along with his mother. The respondent is not the bonafide

purchaser of the suit property. She has not purchased the property from

the petitioner. The respondent knows that the petitioners are having right

2/8

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

C.R.P.No.2733 of 2023

in the suit property. It was further stated that PW1 was cross examined

by the petitioners, but certain lapses were left, which was noticed later

point of time only. In order to clarify certain aspects, PW1 has to be

recalled for further cross examination. The respondent resisted the

applications by filing a counter affidavit stating that PW1 was examined

and was cross examined in detail. PW2 was examined and documents

were marked. There is no need or necessity to recall PW1 once again for

cross examination. The Trial Court, after hearing the counsel on either

side, dismissed both the applications by common order dated 15.03.2023.

Aggrieved by the said orders, these revision petitions are filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1^st

petitioner was facing various health issues and was not able to assist the

Advocate and Court in efficacious manner. Due to ill health, she was not

able to produce all the evidence within the particular time which made

the Advocate not able to substantially cross examine PW1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit

that, since certain documents and other relevant materials and particulars

3/8

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

C.R.P.No.2733 of 2023

were given belatedly, the reopen and recall applications were filed to

establish the case before the Court. The learned trial judge had not given

bonafide reasons for dismissing the Interlocutory Applications, which is

against the principles and procedures of conducting trial.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would

reiterate the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the above

applications and seek for dismissal of these petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for th