[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Singaraj vs R.Bose ... 1St on 18 March, 2026
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.1883 of 2026
C.R.P.(MD).No.409 of 2026
1.Singaraj
2.T.Gowtham ... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants 1 & 12
Vs.
1.R.Bose ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
Plaintiff
2.Ramathal
3.Kannammal
4.Muthammal
5.Chinnathayi
6.Palpandi
7.Pappa
8.Duraipandi
9.Ramar
10.Jeyamani
11.Asodai ... Respondents 2 to 11/Respondents 2 to 11/
Defendants 2 to 11
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to allow the civil revision petition setting aside the order dated
20.01.2026 made in I.A.No.5 of 2026 in O.S.No.243 of 2008 on the file of
Principal District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam.
C.R.P.(MD).No.410 of 2026
1.Singaraj
2.T.Gowtham ... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants 1 & 12
Vs.
1.R.Bose ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
Plaintiff
2.Ramathal
3.Kannammal
4.Muthammal
5.Chinnathayi
6.Palpandi
7.Pappa
8.Duraipandi
9.Ramar
10.Jeyamani
11.Asodai ... Respondents 2 to 11/Respondents 2 to 11/
Defendants 2 to 11
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to allow the civil revision petition setting aside the order dated
20.01.2026 made in I.A.No.6 of 2026 in O.S.No.243 of 2008 on the file of
Principal District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh
For R-1 : Mr.S.Ravindran
For R-8 : Mr.R.Ganesan
For R-2 to R-5,
R-7 & R-11 : No appearance
(In both cases)
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ravindran for
first respondent and Mr.R.Ganesan for eighth respondent.
2. These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the common order passed
by the learned Principal District Munsif at Tirumangalam in I.A.Nos.5 and 6
of 2026 in O.S.No.243 of 2008 dated 20.01.2026. The defendants 1 and 12
are the civil revision petitioners.
3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of
an agreement of sale dated 09.03.2005. The suit was taken on file by the
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and numbered as O.S.No.243 of
2008. Summons were served on the defendants. The defendants have also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
filed their written statement. Pending the litigation, the first defendant is
said to have alienated the property in favour of the second defendant and
subsequently to a third party, one Gowtham. The said Gowtham has been
impleaded as the 12th defendant in the suit. These are the bare essentials
necessary for disposal of the revision.
4. The suit was posted for trial. P.W.1 entered the witness box on
06.11.2025 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. He sought further time to mark
documents. The matter was adjourned to 11.11.2025. On that day, the
evidence of P.W.1 in chief was closed and the matter was listed for cross-
examination on 19.11.2025. On 19.11.2025, the plaintiff was not ready for
cross-examination. A request was made for adjournment for the appearance
of P.W.1. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 24.11.2025. On 24.11.2025
too, P.W.1 was absent. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 26.11.2025. On
26.11.2025, P.W.1 was present, but the defendants were absent. Hence, the
evidence of P.W.1 was closed.
5. The defendants 1 and 12 filed applications under Order 18 Rule 17
and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to re-open and recall P.W.1.
The matter was adjourned from 10.12.2025 to 08.01.2026. On 08.01.2026,
the matter was again adjourned to 20.01.2026. On 20.01.2026, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
applications filed to re-open and recall P.W.1 came to be dismissed.
Challenging the same, the present revision.
6. The learned Judge had dismissed the applications on the ground
that the matter had been listed for cross-examination of P.W.1 on
11.11.2025, 19.11.2025, 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025, as the defendants
had not cross-examined P.W.1 on those dates, he felt there was no necessity
to entertain the applications to re-open and recall P.W.1. He took note of the
fact that the suit was pending from 2008 and grant of further time would
cause prejudice to the parties.
7. Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh took me through the 'B' Diary and urged
that the defendants had sought time only once, i.e., on 26.11.2025 and
hence, placing the blame on the defendants for the adjournments on
11.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 is unfair and improper. He further
states that P.W.1, who has marked Ex.A1 agreement, is an essential witness
and hence, the defendants ought to be permitted to cross-examine him.
8. Per contra, Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for the contesting
respondent/plaintiff urges that the suit has been pending from the year
2008. He states that the plaintiff has been knocking on the doors seeking
justice for more than 17 years and still, he is yet to see the end of litigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
He pleads that the Court was constrained to close the evidence as the
defendants did not co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal. He left it to
the discretion of this Court to pass appropriate orders.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have
gone through the records.
10. I have to agree with Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh that the defendants
are not responsible for the case not proceeding further on 11.11.2025,
19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025. On two occasions, the matter was adjourned as
the plaintiff was not present for cross-examination. The view of the Trial
Court, i.e., the matter had suffered an adjournment since the defendants
had not cross-examined the plaintiff, is not borne out by records. Such a
finding is but perverse. A person can be cross-examined only if he or she is
present in Court. The defendants are no magicians to cross-examine a party,
who is not available.
11. Furthermore, the Court should have taken into consideration that
it is a suit for specific performance, where vital rights over immovable
properties are involved. The crucial document in such a suit is Ex.A1. If
there is no cross-examination on Ex.A1 by the defendants, they run the risk
of the evidence tendered on Ex.A1 going uncontroverted. This Court is of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
view that the revision itself would have been unnecessary, had the learned
Trial Judge taken a pragmatic view of the matter.
12. Be that as it may. Since I have found that the defendants were not
responsible for non-examination of the plaintiff on those three dates and
that the cross-examination could not proceed on account of the absence of
the plaintiff, I am inclined to allow the revision and give an opportunity to
the defendants to cross-examine P.W.1.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petitions are
allowed with the following directions:
(i) The common order passed by the learned Trial Judge in I.A.Nos.5
and 6 of 2026 in O.S.No.243 of 2008 dated 20.01.2026 is set aside.
(ii) The applications in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2026 are allowed.
(iii) P.W.1 shall present himself in the Trial Court for
cross-examination on 24.03.2026. On the said date, the defendants shall
cross-examine P.W.1.
(iv) Being a suit of the year 2008, the learned Principal District
Munsif, Tirumangalam is requested to ensure that the suit is given, at least
two effective hearings per week. On conclusion of trial, the learned Principal
District Munsif shall, without any further delay, ensure that the judgment is
pronounced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
14. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tirumangalam is requested
to act upon the web copy of this order and need not wait for the certified
copy. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
Note: Upload order copy by 23.03.2026.
To
The Principal District Munsif Court,
Tirumangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.409 and 410 of 2026
18.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 09:14:11 pm )
