Madras High Court
Yamuna vs Mohammed Mydeen on 4 January, 2024
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 04/01/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
(1)CRP(MD)No.1687 of 2023:-
Yamuna
Through the Power Agent of
Narayanan :Petitioner/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
Vs.
Mohammed Mydeen : Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the
fair and decretal order in I.A No.11 of 2023 in O.S No.27
of 20214 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge, Thanjavur @ Pattukottai, dated 29/03/2023.
For Petitioner : M/s.Muthukamatchi
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran
(2)CRP(MD)No.1688 of 2023:-
Yamuna
Through the Power Agent of
Narayanan :Petitioner/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
Vs.
Mohammed Mydeen : Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the
fair and decretal order in I.A No.12 of 2023 in O.S No.27
of 20214 on the file of the III Additional District
Judge, Thanjavur @ Pattukottai, dated 29/03/2023.
For Petitioner : M/s.Muthukamatchi
For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran
O R D E R
Both civil revision petitions are filed seeking to
set aside the orders, dated 29/03/2023 made in IA Nos.11
and 12 of 2023 in O.S No.27 of 2014 on the file of the
III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.
2.The facts in brief:-
A suit in O.S No.27 of 2014 was filed by the
respondent herein namely Mohammed Mydeen seeking a relief
of specific performance on the basis of the sale
agreement, dated 18/03/2011 entered into between the
plaintiff and the second defendant. The second defendant
entered into an agreement with the first defendant. The
defendants appeared and also filed written statement.
After framing the issues, the trial commenced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
3.After completing the examination of the witnesses,
the case was posted for argument on the side of the
petitioner herein. At that time, two applications came to
be filed by the petitioner. One for re-opening the case
and another for recall PW1 for making further cross
examination.
4.Both the applications came to be dismissed by the
trial after elaborate discussion. Against which these
revisions are preferred by the petitioner.
5.Heard both sides.
6.The reason assigned by the petitioner for the
purpose of recall PW1 for further examination is
mentioned that some of the vital questions were omitted
to put. In that petition they have elaborated the points
to be elicited from PW1 by way of cross examination.
7.Per contra, it is the contention on the part of
the respondent that the suit was filed in the year 2004,
written statement filed on 05/12/2014. Trial commenced
on 14/11/2018. Even after the completion of the
examination of PW1 in Chief and Cross, he took one year.
Cross examination was done on various dates such as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
14/12/2018; Further cross examination was done after
further chief examination made by the respondent on
07/032019. Again he was recalled on the side of the
petitioner and the further cross examination was made by
the petitioner on 01/10/2019. So the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent would submit that when
sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner herein
to cross examine PW1 in an elaborate manner in more than
one occasions, at the fag end of the trial, these
petitions are filed to fill up the lacuna.
8.Per contra, it is contended on the part of the
petitioner as elaborated in the petition, vital points
were not elicited from PW1. According to him, one more
opportunity may be given to recall PW1 for completing
cross examination, so that he may not feel prejudiced.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would rely upon the judgment of this court in the case of
S.Ramasamy Vs. Perumal and others (2014(3)CTC 518)
stating that such sort of attitude should not be
encouraged and that too to fill up the lacuna. I am not
going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner is
trying to fill up the lacuna or not. The fact remains
that as mentioned several opportunities were available to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
him to cross examine PW1 on this aspect and these things
were already available to the petitioner at the time of
cross examining PW1 on several occasions. But the reason
for failure to elicit these points is not mentioned in
the petitioner. When the suit is filed in 2004, at the
fag end of the trial process, it may not appropriate on
the part of this court to allow the petitioner again to
cross examine PW1. The attitude on the part of the
defendant in dragging on the matter endlessly cannot be
appreciated. It must be put an end at one stage. Having
failed to utilise the opportunity on more then one
occasions, these petitions have been filed by the
petitioner belatedly, rejected rightly by the trial
court. I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders
passed by the trial court.
10.Further reading of the orders passed by the trial
also indicate that the points which are mentioned in the
petition were already put to PW1.
11.Para (5-xi) reads as under:-
“(5-xi)And on 5.1.2023, without
advancing arguments on the side of the
petitioners/defendants, they have come
forward with this application. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
hearing the application, the Learned
Counsel for the petitioners/Defendants
would submit that during the course of
cross examination of PW1, these
questions which are tabulated or stated
in the affidavit are omitted to be
asked and these are the material
questions to be asked relating with the
Sale Agreement and all prayed to allow
this application.”
The above said observation will answer to the argument
advanced by the petitioner. So I find no reason to
entertain this petitioner. Nothing is available to the
petitioner to revise the order.
11.So, I find no reason to entertain these revisions
and the orders passed by the trial Judge does not suffer
from illegality or irregularity.
12.The civil revision petitions deserve dismissal.
Accordingly, they are dismissed. Consequently, connected
CMP is closed.
05/01/2024
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
To,
The III Additional District Judge,
Thanjavur at Pattukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1687 and 1688 of 2023
05/01/2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
