Dr.P.Balakrishnan vs Mohammad Gani
2023 Latest Caselaw 3862 Mad

                                                                                     CRP.No.1120 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 06.04.2023

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                    CRP.No.1120 of 2023 and
                                                     CMP.No.7853 of 2023

                Dr.P.Balakrishnan                                          ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.
                1.Mohammad Gani
                2.H.E.Haroon Mohamed
                3.Mohamed Ibrahim Khalifathullah
                4.Rihana Benazir
                5.Rizwan Mohamed
                6.Riyaz Mohamed
                7.K.Ismath Batcha
                8.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
                   Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
                   No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
                   Egmore, Chennai 600 008                                             ... Respondents


                PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                India to set aside the final and fair order dated 06.02.2023 made in IA.No.2 of
                2022 in OS.No.19 of 2011 by the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
                                   For Petitioner    : Mr.Balaji Thirumoorthy

                                   For Respondents : M/s.Krithika Kamal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                Page 1 of 6
                                                                                     CRP.No.1120 of 2023



                                                          ORDER

Challenging the impugned order dated 06.02.2023 passed in IA.No.2 of

2022 in OS.No.19 of 2011 by the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, the first

defendant preferred this revision.

2. Before the trial court, the first defendant filed applications to reopen

and recall DW2 in order to mark the document which he obtained through RTI.

Since after completion of evidence, he filed the said applications and the same

was not appreciated by the trial Judge holding that DW2-CMDA official was

examined much earlier in the year 2019 and after two years, he filed this

application, as such is not permissible and not specifically mentioned about the

document he relied to mark through DW2. Accordingly, the petition was

dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that with

regard to issuance of demand notice, pertaining to the allotment of the suit

property, at the earlier occasion, he obtained information through RTI. He wants

to examine DW2 to that aspect since because they are the author of the document.

But the trial Judge partly allowed the application for reopen, but dismissed the

application for recall of DW2.

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

CRP.No.1120 of 2023

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit was filed in

the year 2011 for permanent injunction. Since because they are in possession of

the suit property and the defendant caused interference, hence they filed suit.

Furthermore, allotment order of the year 2006 stands in their name.

5. But on seeing the fact that from 2011 onwards, the first defendant

also contested the suit claiming that at earlier occasion, allotment was made in his

favour. He also filed writ proceedings, but the same is now dismissed for default.

On filing of the suit, he filed two applications, one application was dismissed for

default and another one dismissed. But now with regard to restore the same, he

also filed restoration application. With regard to the allotment of the property,

there is a dispute pending between the parties. So to prove his defence,

opportunity has to be given to the first defendant. However, the trial court partly

allowed and not permitted to examine DW2 as such, it is untenable for the reason

that with regard to the document obtained through RTI is to be elicited from the

mouth of DW2, who is the right person to speak about the same.

6. Therefore, the findings of the trial Judge with regard to IA.No.2 of

2022 is set aside and IA.No.2 of 2022 is also allowed. However as per the

submissions of both the counsels, now the case is reserved for judgment.

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

CRP.No.1120 of 2023

Therefore, the trial Judge is directed to give one more opportunity to the

defendants to examine DW2, so as to enable DW1 to produce those documents.

He is also directed to serve hand summon to DW2 and cross examine the witness

on the same day when he appears. The trial Judge is also directed to complete the

suit proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this

order.

7. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

06.04.2023 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order lok

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

CRP.No.1120 of 2023

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

CRP.No.1120 of 2023

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

lok To

1.The District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

2.Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008

CRP.No.1120 of 2023

06.04.2023

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