Madras High Court
Ravichandrane vs Satiyavanimuttu on 20 June, 2025
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
and CMP Nos.26749 and 26750 of 2024
Ravichandrane ... Petitioner in
both CRPs
-Vs-
Satiyavanimuttu ... Respondent in
both CRPs
Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 in O.S.No.86 of 2022
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry dated 09.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Dharani
for Mr.D.Ashok Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.Md.Sajid
ORDER
The matter is listed 'for being mentioned' today at the instance of Mr.D.Ashok
Kumar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
2. When this Court ordered 'notice of motion' on 25.11.2024, an order of
interim stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.86 of 2022 was ordered. It has been
noted by the Court Officer in the bundle. Unfortunately, the concerned
stenographer had noted that as if only notice had been ordered, and failed to
record that interim stay has been granted. I was holding Court at Madurai from
February till April 2025. On my return, a mention was made and hence, the matter
is listed for hearing.
3. Heard Ms.R.Dharini for the revision petitioner and Mr.Mohammed Sajjid
for the respondents. By consent, the main revisions itself are taken up for disposal.
4. These revisions challenge the order passed by the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge in Puducherry in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 dated 09.08.2024
passed in O.S.No.86 of 2022.
5. O.S.No.86 of 2022 is a suit presented by the respondent herein for
declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. In the said suit, the
plaintiff has completed his examination as early as in 2023. Thereafter, he
examined another witness viz., P.W.2 who was a witness to the settlement deed
dated 21.02.2020. Learned counsel for the defendant had cross examined both
P.W.1 and P.W.2. The evidence was closed and the case was adjourned for further
hearing. In April 2024, the defendants 1 to 3 filed an application for reopening and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
recalling the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 for putting certain factual questions in
the suit. Those applications were numbered as I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024. It came to
be opposed by the plaintiff stating that there is no ambiguity in the evidence that
has been tendered by P.Ws 1 and 2, and therefore, the defendant should not be
given an opportunity to fill up omissions and lacunae in the evidence.
6. The learned trial Judge took up the applications for disposal and after
referring to a judgment of this Court in T.Sanjeevi -vs- E.Perumalsamy in
C.R.P(PD)(MD) Nos.41 and 42 of 2021, came to a conclusion that the
applications are untenable and consequently dismissed the same. Hence these
revisions.
7. I heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone
through the records.
8. The suit is one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for
a declaration that the deed canceling the settlement deed executed in favour of the
plaintiff is null and void. Vital rights relating to immovable property are involved in
the said suit. As to the demand of the plaintiff that the defendant has not disclosed
the "vital questions" that he seeks to elicit from P.Ws.1 and 2 is concerned, I am of
the view that in case the defendant discloses those factual questions, the purpose
of cross examination itself will be defeated. The purpose of cross examination is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
bring forth before the Court the evidence in a suit, which, if disclosed earlier, will
prepare the party to give tailor made replies. Therefore, the demand that the
factual questions should have been disclosed earlier does not apply to adversarial
form of litigation.
9. However, taking into consideration that the plaintiff has been before the
Court from 2022 onwards, the defendant must not be permitted to drag on the
proceedings. Hence, by consent I pass the following order:
(a) P.W.1 and P.W.2 will present themselves before the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge at Puducherry on 07.07.2025.
(b) On that date, the defendant shall cross examine P.W.1 and
P.W.2. In case he so requests, the matter can be adjourned
for one further day. In any event, the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 must be closed on 08.07.2025. Any request for
adjournment by the defendant beyond 08.07.2025 should
not be entertained by the Court.
(c) As a condition for reopening and recalling P.W.1 and P.W.2,
the defendant shall tender a sum of Rs.10,000/- per witness
on or before 04.07.2025. In case the sum of Rs.10,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
per witness is not tendered, the benefit granted under this
order shall stand automatically forfeited.
(d) Once the evidence of the plaintiff is concluded, the trial
Court is requested to proceed with all expedition that this
matter deserves and the suit should be disposed of on or
before 31.10.2025.
10. With the above directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
KST
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
C.R.P.Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
C.R.P.Nos.4779 & 4780 of 2024
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 11:28:03 am )
