Madras High Court
Ravi vs Vijayanthi on 28 March, 2022
CRP(PD)No.3484 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP (PD) No.3484 of 2017
Ravi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Vijayanthi ... Respondent
Prayer: This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
05.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.312 of 2016 in O.S.No.258 of 2011 on the file
of the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri and allow the revision petition.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
There is no representation. The matter is listed under the caption “for
dismissal”. The third defendant in O.S.No.258 of 2011 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, is the revision petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.3484 of 2017
2.The said suit in O.S.No.258 of 2011 has been filed by the plaintiff
Vijayanthi against the three defendants originally. Pending the suit, the first
defendant Varadhappan died and therefore, the 4th and 5th defendants were
impleaded as the defendants. The said suit had been filed seeking a
declaration that particular sale deed registered on 06.02.2004 and dated
03.02.2004 and another sale deed registered on 31.05.2006 are null and void
and for further relief of consequential injunction.
3.Written statement had been filed. Thereafter, the parties had been
invited to graze the witness box. The plaintiff had let in evidence as PW1.
The matter was posted for cross examination of PW1. The present revision
petitioner/the third defendant did not come forward to cross examine PW1.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1 had been closed and this necessitated the
revision petitioner herein/the third defendant to file an application under
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall PW1 for further cross examination. That
application had come up for consideration before the trial Court/District
Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. The trial Court, by an order dated 05.01.2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.3484 of 2017
had dismissed the application in I.A.No.312 of 2016 holding that
application had been filed only to protract the proceedings.
4.In the course of the order, it had been observed by the learned
District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri that there had been further proceedings
in the trial and quite apart from the evidence on the side of the plaintiff
being concluded, the evidence on the side of the defendants had also been
recorded and concluded. It had been stated that the said application had
been filed to recall PW1. A perusal of the records show that the suit is of the
year 2011 and the revision petition has now been pending for the past 5
years. The observation of the learned District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri is
that evidence of the present petitioner herein as defendant had also been
completed. It is now for the parties to advance argument on the basis of the
records. Even otherwise, the explanation to Order 18 Rule 17 CPC shows
that sufficient materials are available and if evidence had been recorded, to
a large extent then the trial Court is at liberty to proceed to deliver the
judgement on the basis of the available records. The civil revision stands
dismissed and a direction is given to the Principal District Munsif Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.3484 of 2017
Dharmapuri, to proceed further and deliver a judgment in O.S.No.258 of
2011 on the file of the available records, if judgment had not been delivered.
No costs.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sms 28.03.2022
To
The learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.3484 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
sms
CRP (PD) No.3484 of 2017
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
