Advocates:
['P B RAMANUJAM', '', 'M JAAGDHEESAN', 'R V GAYATRI', 'P B BALAJI']

C.R.P.No.4037 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.12.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P. No. 4037 of 2022

and

CMP.No.20935 of 2022

Arya Gowda Road Balaji Apartments,

Resident Welfare Association,

Regn No.230/2003,

Rep. by its Secretary,

New No. 32/Old No. 81,

Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033.

... Petitioner / Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Sasikumar,

Shop No. 1, Door No. 32/81,

Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033.

2. E. Subramanian,

Shop No. 1, Door No. 32/81,

Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4037 of 2022

3. Lucy Surendran,

C-5, Thirumurugan Street,

Kalashetram Besant Nagar,

Chennai - 600 090.

4. C.A. Palanivel,

Shop No. 2,

M/s. Iggloo Associates,

Door no. 32/81, Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033.

5. A. Alagesan,

Managing Director,

Arthanari Loom Centre (Textile) Pvt. Ltd. ,

78, Sababathi Street, Erumapalayam Post,

Kalaramapatti, Salem - 636 005.

6. Padma,

Smart Coaching Centre,

Flat No. B. Balaji Apartments,

Door No. 32/81, Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. ... Respondents/Defendants

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated

27/10/2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.s.No.1798 of 2015 pending on

the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.Anish Gopi for

P.B.Ramanujam for

P.B.Balaji

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4037 of 2022

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the fair and

decreetal order dated 27.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in

O.S.No.1798 of 2015.

2.The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff who instituted a

suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No. 1798 of 2015. The

suit is pending for the past about 7 years. As per the order impugned, the

suit reached the final stage and cross-examinations were completed. After

completion of the cross-examination on 26.07.2022, after a lapse of about 2

months, the revision petitioner filed an Interlocutory application seeking

permission to reopen the cross-examination in respect of the DW-2. The

Trial Court considered the reasons stated in the Interlocutory application for

reopening of cross-examination and the Trial Court found that there is no

adequate reason for the purpose of considering the Interlocutory application

filed by the revision petitioner.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4037 of 2022

3.The findings of the Trial Court reveal that the suit reached

almost the final stage and the cross-examination of DW-2 was completed.

The revision petitioner already availed the opportunity of cross-examining

DW-2 sufficiently and therefore, there is no reason to consider the claim of

the revision petitioner to reopen the cross-examination of DW-2. The Trial

Court in clear terms held that the revision petitioner has cross-examined

DW-2 sufficiently and therefore, there is no necessity to provide further

opportunity. The Trial Court further found that the revision petitioner has

made an attempt to fulfill certain areas by reopening the cross-examination

of DW-2 without assigning sufficient reasons. That apart, the Interlocutory

application was filed to prolong and protract the litigation.

4.The idea of prolongation of the litigation, at the instance of the

parties, under no circumstances be encouraged by the Courts. Conducting

the case is the rule and adjournment is only an exception. Thus, the case

once listed must be heard without any unnecessary adjournments. The

practice of filing unnecessary Interlocutory applications in the civil

litigation is increas