IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 29000 OF 2025 M.Rajan, S/o. Late.P.Moses, No.126, 80 Feet Road, A-Block, Thanickachalam Nagar, Ponniammanmedu, Chennai-600 110.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs M.John, S/o. Late.P. Moses, Door No.13-A, First South Street, Kennedy Square, Sembiam, Chennai-600 011.

P.Moses (deceased)

M.Chandra (deceased)

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to eschew the offending portions of the Cross examination sue Motto records by the Learned IV Assistant of City Civil Court in OS.No.3431 of 2014 dated 08-10-2025 further in the adjudications dated 08.10.2025 and 23.10.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Ambigapathi For Respondent(s): Mr.Ralph V. Manohar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to eschew the offending portions of the cross examination suo motu records by the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.3431 of 2014 dated

08.10.2025 further in the adjudications dated 08.10.2025 and 23.10.2025. 2. Before the trial court, the witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel, at that time, he wanted to put up some additional questions with regard to the character of witness, but the trial court held that it is unwarranted one and also it would cause embarrassment. As the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff was not permitted to record the statement of witness and continuously causing harassment, the trial judge has made some observation against the learned counsel and also observed that he wanted to initiate proceedings against him before the Bar Council through High Court. Aggrieved over by the observation made by the trial judge, the Revision Petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that in the interest of justice, he wanted to put up the questions with regard to the character of P.W.1, but the Presiding Officer of the trial court has not permitted as if it is unwarranted one and also made some observations in the evidence of P.W.1 cross-examination, which is liable to be eshewed.

4.The learned counsel for respondent raised strong objections that before the trial court, the learned counsel, who is appearing for the plaintiff has not allowed the witness to depose the evidence and continuously causing harassment while recording the evidence. Therefore, the trial judge has rightly made an observation, which requires no interference. Hence, he raised objections to eschew the said offending words.

5. Considering both side submissions, the fact reveals that admittedly, the case is of the year 2014 and as on date, the plaintiff’s side witness was completed and D.W.1 evidence was started. When the cross-examination of P.W.1 was conducted by the learned counsel for plaintiff, at that time, he raised some questions, which is unwarranted one. Therefore, the trial judge had raised objections. Inspite of that, he raised objections stating that if he is not permitted to record the evidence, his right to defend the case will be defeated. Therefore, the trial judge made an observation in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Now, the case is transferred to III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. In order to safeguard his client, the learned counsel had putforth certain questions while cross-examination of P.W.1. However, the learned counsel is bound to assist the court to record the evidence also. Since the case is transferred to some other court, the observation made by the trial judge is liable to be eschewed considering the welfare of the counsel. Therefore, this Court is inclined to eshew the following portions from the cross-examination of P.W.1 :-

“

(thjp jug;gpy; M$uhd fw;wwpe;j tHf;fwp"h; ,t;tHf;fpy; jPh;f;fg;gl ntz;oa gpur;ridf;F rk;ge;jkpy;yhj nfs;tpfis bjhlh;e;J nfl;lhh;/ ,e;ePjpkd;wk; me;j nfs;tpfs; ,e;j tHf;fpw;F rk;ge;jg;glhjJ vd fw;wwpe;j tHf;fwp"hplk; bjhptpj;j