← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/155/2018allowed

Asha Shivaram v. Kalaiselvi Sengutuvan

2018-01-30Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (PD) No.155 of 2018 and CMP. No.897 of 2018 Mrs.Asha Shivaram Represented by her Power Agent A.Selvanathan .. Petitioner Vs Kalaiselvi Sengutuvan .. Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.944 of 2017 in O.S.No.115 of 2011 on the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge at Puducherry. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Vaikunth For Respondent :Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal order dated 16.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.944 of 2017 in O.S.No.115 of 2011 on

the file of the learned Second Additional District Judge at Puducherry.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No.115 of 2011 for declaration and recovery of possession against the respondent. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid suit is posted for trial. After completion of the petitioner's side evidence and the suit was posted for respondent's side evidence and the respondent has filed proof affidavit and she was examined as DW1 and was cross examined on 13.07.2017. Thereafter, DW2's chief examination has been concluded on 17.08.2017 by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and was cross examined on 14.09.2017.

According to the petitioner, there are some vital questions relating to validity of exhibits marked on behalf of the respondent more preferably relating to the title were not questioned during the cross examination of DW1. On that day Junior Advocate was cross examined DW1. Hence, the revision petitioner has filed an I.A. No. 944 of 2017, under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall of DW1 for further examination.

petitioner and this petitioner filed this application only to prolong the proceedings. Challenging which, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant application has filed for further cross examined of DW1. Therefore, there is no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the DW1 is cross examined by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that DW1 has left India and now staying in France to take treatment and likely to come back in the month of August. But, however, in the event of application is allowed, the respondent will co-operate to conduct the cross-examination by Vedio Conference.

5.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties, they have not objected for conducting the cross examination of DW1 and that too the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will complete the cross examination of DW1 within one day.

6.In the light of the above statement made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the order passed by the Court below in I.A. No.944 of 2017 in O.S. No.115 of 2011 is set aside and remanded to the Court below to consider the application afresh and pass an appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above observation. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

30.01.2018 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order rkp To The learned II Additional District Judge, Puducherry District.

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J., rkp CRP (PD) No. 155 of 2018 and CMP. No.897 of 2018 30.01.2018