M.Chinnasamy vs K.Palanisamy
2021 Latest Caselaw 9753 Mad

                                                                               C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 16.04.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                     THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                              C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017
                                              and C.M.P.No.16386 of 2017

                    M.Chinnasamy                                       ... Petitioner/Plaintiff

                                                            Vs.

                    1.K.Palanisamy
                    2.K.Dharmalingam
                    3.K.Sundandiramani                                ... Respondents/Defendants


                    PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                    Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 23.08.2017 in
                    I.A.No.929 of 2017 in O.S.No.299 of 2012 on the file of the Principal
                    District Munsif Court, Erode, as prayed for to set aside the same.


                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran


                                          For Respondents : Ms.L.Mouli [R1 & R2]
                                                              R3 – No Appearance




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                    1/4
                                                                                   C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017




                                                          ORDER

(Heard through video conferencing)

The petitioner is the plaintiff. The Petition in I.A.No.929 of 2017

was filed to recall a witness after the trial was concluded and the matter

was posted for arguments.

2. The suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for the reliefs of

permanent injunction and partition. The type of relief sought by the

plaintiff, cannot be decided on the basis of mere oral evidence and the

documentary evidence would play importance. The Trial Judge has given

sufficient opportunity for both the parties to adduce both oral and

documentary evidence. This case was 5 years old even at the time of

examination of witnesses. The reason for recalling a witness after the

evidence was closed should be for any strong reasons which should have an

impact on the Judgment and not on flimsy ground. The learned Trial Judge

has rightly appreciated that the petition is lacking in merit and dismissed

the same.

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

C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself

that the case is reserved for Judgment on 22.04.2021. Under such

circumstances, there is no need to keep the suit pending and the trial cannot

be once again reopened for the purpose of examining further witness.

Since due opportunities have been given to both the parties, I do not find

any merit in this petition and the order of the Lower Court does not warrant

any interference.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Connected civil miscellaneous petition in C.M.P.No.16386 of 2017 is

closed.

16.04.2021

Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

Sni

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

C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017

R.N.MANJULA,J.

Sni

To

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Erode,

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

C.R.P.(PD).No.3544 of 2017

16.04.2021

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