Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Sethumahaali – Appellant
Versus
Palanivel – Respondent
CMP(MD) Nos.2824 and 2825 of 2026 | CRPs | I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2022
For Petitioner in both CRPs.: Mr.K.Raghul Priyan
For Respondents in both CRPs.: Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan
Permitting recall of witness for cross-examination on title issues post-trial closure, conditionally with costs to balance justice and delay.
Headnote:The suit involves declaration of title and permanent injunction under relevant civil procedure provisions. Essential facts include filing of O.S.No.15 of 2022, completion of plaintiffs' evidence, defendants' evidence, and applications by third defendant to re-open and recall PW1 for cross-examination on genealogy and title aspects, which were dismissed by the trial court. The High Court found merit in allowing limited re-examination to ensure justice and prevent appellate prejudice. Main issue framed: Whether to permit re-opening of evidence and recall of PW1 post-trial closure for cross-examination on title tracing. Ratio decidendi emphasizes that failure to cross-examine on material points deems testimony accepted (citing prior precedent); however, to balance delay concerns with justice under Section 104 CPC, conditional opportunity granted with costs and timelines (paras 12-14). Civil Revision Petitions allowed; trial court orders set aside on condition of Rs.10,000/- costs payment by 14.04.2026, PW1 recall on 15.04.2026 for cross-examination, no further adjournments, arguments and judgment by 25.06.2026.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit progress and applications to recall pw1 dismissed by trial court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. counsel arguments on urgency vs. delay tactics. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. title tracing critical; cross-exam failure accepts testimony. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conditional recall granted with costs and timelines for justice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the order dated
06.12.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2025 in O.S.No.15 of 2022 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mudukulathur.
2.These two Civil Revision Petitions are at the instance of the third defendant. The parties shall be referred to as their ranks in the suit.
3.The plaintiffs presented O.S.No.15 of 2022 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Mudukulathur, seeking the relief of declaration of title and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. Summons were served on the defendants. The defendants have filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, the Court commenced the trial. The first plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked.
4.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidences tendered, the learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined P.W1. The evidence on the plaintiffs' side was closed. It was listed for the defendants' evidence. The second defendant entered the witness box, deposed his case and marked evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the matter was listed for arguments.
5.At that stage, the third defendant filed two applications in I.A.No.5 of 2025 and I.A.No.6 of 2025, seeking the Court to re-open the evidence of PW1 and to re-call PW1 for the purpose of cross- examination on aspects of genealogy, as well as, title in respect of suit property. The Court ordered notice to the plaintiffs. They stoutly opposed the applications pleading that the suit has been pending for a long time and it had progressed to the stage of trial and that the idea of the defendants was only to delay and defeat the rights of the plaintiffs.
6.The learned Judge heard the arguments on both sides and dismissed the petitions on 06.12.2025. Hence, these Revisions.
7.I heard Mr.K.Raghul Priyan for the petitioner and Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan for the respondents.
8.While Mr.Raghul Priyan pleaded that if an opportunity is granted to the third defendant, he will cross-examine the first plaintiff on the same day and thereafter proceed for arguments.
9.Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan states that this is only a ruse to drag on the proceedings as long as possible and deny a religious institution its right over the property. He states that cross-examination was over as early as on 23.06.2023 and the attempt of the defendants to re- open the same after a period of three years indicates their state of mind.
10.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.
11.Here is a suit for declaration of title and for injunction. The third defendant claims that the property had been purchased by her father-in-law's father, one Yakub and two other persons, namely, Ponniah and Gurusamy had purchased the property from one Vellaichamy. It is the further plea that Ponniah and Gurusamy had released their rights, which they had so purchased, in favour of Yakub. She further urges that Yakub had given the property to her father-in-law, one Jeevaraj and Jeevaraj had been in possession and enjoyment and thereafter, the third defendant claims right under him.
12.An important aspect of this case would be tracing of title from Vellaichamy to Yakub, Ponniah and Gurusamy and from them to Jeevaraj and finally to the third defendant. The third defendant wants to cross-examine the first plaintiff on these aspects. In a suit for title, if these aspects go un-controverted, the defendants would not be left with any say in the suit. It is a settled rule that, if a party fails to cross-examine a witness on material points, they are deemed do have accepted the testimony as true (see, A.E.G.Carapiet Vs. A.Y.De
