Madras High Court
Sheela Suganthi vs Halima Bai on 5 February, 2021
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
and
CMP.No.20680 of 2017
Sheela Suganthi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Halima Bai
2.I.Salai Mohamed Sait
3.Iboo Sait
4.Sattar Sait ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair order and decretal
order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam made in
IA.No.209 of 2017 in OS.No.75 of 2014 dated 19.08.2017.
For Petitioner : Dr.C.Ravichandran
for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran
For Respondents
For R1 :Mr.Srinath Sridevan
R2 : died
For R3 : Mr.T.Mohan
for Mr.M.Murali
R4 : Notice served
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is arising out of fair order and
decretal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam
made in IA.No.209 of 2017 in OS.No.75 of 2014 dated 19.08.2017
thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner to eschew the
evidence of DW1.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed suit for declaration
declaring that the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1996 passed in
OS.No.148 of 1996 as null and void. The only ground raised by the
petitioner is that DW1 deposed on behalf of the first defendant in the
suit. He categorically mentioned that he is the power holder of DW1
and on the capacity of the power holder deposed before the trial court.
Admittedly, he did not mark any power of attorney and categorically
admitted that no power of attorney executed in favour of DW1. The
petitioner cross examined only to the effect that DW1 was not power
holder to the first defendant and he deposed. In respect of other
depositions, the petitioner did not cross examine since DW1 is not the
power holder of the first defendant and he is not competent to depose
on behalf of the first defendant. The court below also noted that
admittedly there is no power of attorney executed in favour of DW1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
However, he has been examined as one of the witness on behalf of the
defendants as DW1. Therefore, the question of eschewing the evidence
of DW1 would arise only at the time of arguments. Therefore, this
Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court
below. However, the petitioner is permitted to cross examine DW1.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to cross examine
DW1 on the next hearing date, failing which the trial court is directed
to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Further, the trial court
is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
No order as to costs.
05.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Udhagamandalam
CRP.PD.No.4355 of 2017
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
