The court recognizes the necessity for timely witness examination in civil proceedings, balancing procedural fairness with expeditious trial management.

ORDER

Today, this matter is listed under the caption “For being mentioned”

at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the non-availability of the web copy of the order, within a short period of time, the examination of the witnesses would not go on 02.02.2026 and 12.02.2026 as undertaken before this Court. Now he seeks for alteration of dates as 03.03.2026 and 11.03.2026, which would also automatically imply that the subsequent dates viz., 04.03.2026 and 12.03.2026 would be a cushion, in case, the evidence could not be concluded on the first day. 4. Mr.D.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondent would however bring to my notice that the A-Diary endorsement dated 12.02.2026, where the petitioner before the trial Court has stated that the witness is not willing to appear before the Court and hence, he intends to take out an application to appear Subpoena.

5. It is made clear that the order was passed only on the assurance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses would be made available on the particular dates and the petitioner shall not have the luxury of taking out the applications for summoning the witness and prolong the trial any further. In the event of the witnesses not appearing on 03.03.2026 and 11.03.2026, the petitioner shall forfeit his rights to examine the witnesses.

24-02-2026 Jd P.B.BALAJI J.

jd CRP No. 5310 of 2025

24.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP.No.5310 of 2025 and CMP. No.26746 of 2025 N.K.Kaliyaperumal ... Petitioner Vs.

R.Jayakumar ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order in E.A. No.14 of 2025 in E.A. No.10 of 2025 in E.P. No.61 of 2021 in O.S. No.24 of 2011 dated 13.08.2025 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Villupuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.D.Vasanth

ORDER

The third party obstructor against whom an Application under Order

21 Rule 97 CPC has been filed by the decree holder is the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dismissing his Application in E.A. No.14 of 2025 to issue summons to four witnesses which came to be dismissed by the Executing Court and challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.D.Vasanth, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner has admittedly been in peaceful possession of the decretal property and that is the reason why an application has been taken out by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Mr.Suresh, learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner claims under a prior agreement of sale dated 21.07.2003, in and by which, he was placed in physical possession of the suit property. However, behind his back, the respondent has proceeded to file a suit for specific performance of a subsequent agreement of sale dated 29.05.2009 and on the strength of the decree in the suit in O.S. No.24 of 2011 filed by the respondent, the petitioner is now attempted to be dispossessed.

4. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel would contend that in order to establish his independent claim to remain in possession of the decretal property, the petitioner intended to establish the genuineness of the agreement of sale da