Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Radhakrishnan S/o.Angappan – Appellant
Versus
Thambidurai S/o.Angappan – Respondent
CRP NO. 6477 OF 2025|CMP NO. 31995 OF 2025

Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Madhanraj, Mr.M.Manirajan

Court may grant opportunity to cross-examine witness despite delays if adjournment sought bona fide in old suits.

Headnote:The trial court dismissed applications under inherent powers to reopen and recall DW6 for cross-examination in a suit pending over 10 years, citing deliberate delay. Petitioners sought one-day adjournment on the hearing date, which was denied. Court granted opportunity considering suit vintage and readiness to proceed. Issue framed as whether trial court erred in dismissing recall applications without granting adjournment. Ratio: Courts may allow recall for cross-examination if adjournment sought bona fide, balancing delay against fair trial rights, especially in protracted suits. Civil Revision Petitions allowed; trial court orders set aside; applications permitted; suit disposal directed within four months.

Table of Content
1. petitions challenge dismissal of recall applications in decade-old suit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners sought brief adjournment for cross-examination. (Para 3)
3. court balances delay against fair cross-examination opportunity. (Para 4)
4. revisions allowed; expedited suit disposal ordered. (Para 5 , 7)

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions to set aside the fair and Decretal order passed in I.A Nos.624 & 625 of 2025, respectively in OS No.249 of 2014 dated 11.11.2025 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

2. Before the Trial Court, the defendants filed I.A. No.624 of 2025 and I.A. No.625 of 2025 in O.S. No.249 of 2014, seeking to reopen and to recall DW6 for cross-examination. The said applications were dismissed on the ground that the suit has been pending for more than 10 years and that the defendants had deliberately failed to cross-examine the witness, thereby attempting to prolong the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed by the defendants 2 & 10.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that on the date fixed for cross-examination, the junior counsel appeared before the Court and sought an adjournment for one day, but the same was not granted, and the applications were erroneously dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to cross-examine the witness.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent raised objections. However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014 and that the counsel for the revision petitioners had sought time on the date of cross-examination, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to cross-examine DW6.

5. Accordingly, the orders passed in I.A. No.624 of 2025 and I.A. No.625 of 2025 in O.S. No.249 of 2014 are set aside, and both the applications are allowed.

6. The defendants are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

Considering that the suit is of the year 2014, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months.

7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAST.V.Thamilselvi, JRadhakrishnan S/o.Angappan – AppellantVersusThambidurai S/o.Angappan – RespondentCRP NO. 6477 OF 2025|CMP NO. 31995 OF 2025

Court may grant opportunity to cross-examine witness despite delays if adjournment sought bona fide in old suits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Radhakrishnan S/o.Angappan – Appellant
Versus
Thambidurai S/o.Angappan – Respondent
CRP NO. 6477 OF 2025|CMP NO. 31995 OF 2025