Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
Michael Raj – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Anand – Respondent
CRP No. 2060 of 2026 | CMP NO. 9122 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.V.Seshachari
For the Respondents: G.Anand

The court maintains that cross-examination is a vital procedural right in adjudication, and when consented to by the opposing party, it should be facilitated through fixed timelines to avoid undue delay in proceedings.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a lower court order rejecting an application for the cross-examination of a witness in a landlord-tenant dispute. The petitioner, a tenant, sought to overturn this decision through a Civil Revision Petition. The court noted the respondent's willingness to allow cross-examination, provided a strict timeline was imposed for its completion. The core issue is whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioner the right to cross-examine a witness. The court recognized that granting such an opportunity is crucial for a fair assessment of the merits of the case. By balancing the interests of both parties, the court permitted the cross-examination subject to a specific schedule. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with directions to the trial court to allow the cross-examination within a fixed timeframe and to consider the evidence on its merits.

Table of Content
1. summary of the procedural history and the nature of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. consent of parties facilitates the resolution of procedural disputes. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court directives ensure trial efficiency through fixed scheduling. (Para 5 , 6)

To allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Fair and Order and Decreetal Order dated 02.03.2026 passed in MP No.1 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P. No.591 of 2025 on the file of the learned XVI Court of Small Causes at Chennai.

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.P. No.1 of 2026 in R.L.T.O.P. No.591 of 2025.

2.Under the aforesaid order, the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai rejected the petitioner’s petition seeking permission to cross examine the respondent’s witness. The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant.

3.The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit on instructions that the petitioner may be permitted to cross examine the respondent’s witness, provided a time frame is fixed by this Court for cross examination.

4.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord before this Court, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by vacating the interim stay granted by this Court in this petition on 24.04.2026 and by permitting the petitioner/tenant to cross examine the respondent’s/ landlord’s witness in the main R.L.T.O.P. No.591 of 2025.

5.The Trial Court i.e. XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai is directed to list the matter for hearing on 29.06.2026. On that date, the witness of the respondent/landlord shall be present in the Court and the petitioner’s counsel shall cross examine the respondent’s/landlord’s witness. The cross examination shall be completed on or before 02.07.2026. While passing the final judgment in R.L.T.O.P. No.591 of 2025, the Trial Court i.e. XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai is directed to consider the cross examination of the respondent’s/landlord’s witness, on merits and in accordance with law.

6.With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASAbdul Quddhose, JMichael Raj – AppellantVersusVinay Anand – RespondentCRP No. 2060 of 2026 | CMP NO. 9122 OF 2026

The court maintains that cross-examination is a vital procedural right in adjudication, and when consented to by the opposing party, it should be facilitated through fixed timelines to avoid undue delay in proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
Michael Raj – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Anand – Respondent
CRP No. 2060 of 2026 | CMP NO. 9122 OF 2026