Madras High Court
Janardhanan @ Elumalai vs N.Elumalai on 18 April, 2022
CRP.No.2123 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.2123 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
1. Janardhanan @ Elumalai
2. M.Jaya Murugan ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1. N.Elumalai
2. The Sub Registrar,
Vanur.
3. Chandra
4. Jayalakshmi ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under 227 of Constitution of
India against the Order dated 30.01.2015 made in I.A.No.554 of 2014 in
O.S.No.118 of 2012 dated 17.10.2016 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate at Vanur.
For petitioners : Mr.D.Rajagopal
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2123 of 2015
For respondents : Mr.N.Subramani – R1
Mr.P.Harish –R2
R3 and R4 – No appearance
ORDER
Challenging the dismissal of the application filed to reject the
documents filed by P.W.1 in I.A.No.554 of 2014 in O.S.No.118 of 2012
dated 17.10.2016, the present revision has been filed.
2. The brief averments of the application filed by the petitioner is as
follows :
The petitioners are the defendants in the main suit and they had filed
an application to reject the documents marked through P.W.1 stating that as
P.W.1 is not a party to the documents, he cannot talk about the said
transactions and hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. It is the contention of the first respondent/plaintiff that in view of
the physical and mental condition of the first respondent/plaintiff, his son
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2123 of 2015
has been examined as P.W.1 and there is no prohibition to examine the son.
The validity or admissibility of the documents can be decided at the time of
the judgment and prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court below
dismissed the application against which the present revision has been filed.
5. The main contention of the petitioners is that as P.W.1 is not a
party to the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff, he has no knowledge
about the documents and hence, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 marked through P.W.1
have to be rejected. The contention of the first respondent/plaintiff is that
he is aged 88 years and he is not in good health and in mental condition for
the past one year and he is taking treatment and he does not want to be
examined as a witness. Therefore, P.W.1, who is the son of the plaintiff,
has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 have
been marked through him. Hence, there is no bar in examining P.W.1, when
the party to the suit is not to be examined at a later stage. The trial Court
considering all these aspects has rightly dismissed the application, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2123 of 2015
requires no interference.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
18.04.2022
vrc
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Vanur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.2123 of 2015
J.NISHA BANU, J.
vrc
Civil Revision Petition [PD] No.2123 of 2015
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
