Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
Michael Raj – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Anand – Respondent
| 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 cou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
