Madras High CourtCRP/3170/2026disposed of

S.D.Manohar Kumar Lodha v. Sri S.S.Jain Educational Society

2026-06-09Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

1. S.D.Manohar Kumar Lodha Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Sri S.S.Jain Educational Society Rep by its Authorised Representative /Signatory, No.15(3), Madley Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 Respondent(s) CRP No. 3171 of 2026

1. S.D.Manohar Kumar Lodha Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Sri S.S.Jain Educational Society Rep by its Authorised Representative /Signatory, No.15(3), Madley Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside fair and decreetal order in IA No. 2 of 2026 in OS No. 5671 of 2024, on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.03.2026 CRP No. 3171 of 2026 PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to Set aside fair and decreetal order in IA No. 3 of 2026 in O.S No. 5671 of 2024, on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.03.2026

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Chetan Prakash For Respondent(s):

Notice dispensed with COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned orders dated 12.03.2026 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 in O.S. No. 5671 of 2024.

2. The aforesaid orders were passed by the trial court, rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The suit was filed by the respondent, seeking for damages on the ground of the alleged defamation committed by the petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, the petitioner's counsel had earlier cross-examined the plaintiff's witness extensively on five hearing days. After elaborate cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, the evidence on the side of the plaintiff got closed. However, the petitioner has once again filed applications in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 through a different counsel, seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that a pertinent question was left out to be asked from P.W.1.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the matter was adjourned for cross-examination of P.W.1 on several occasions and the plaintiff's witness was cross-examined extensively by the earlier counsel of the petitioner on five hearing dates. After a lengthy cross-examination, the petitioner has chosen to file I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026, seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 through a different counsel. According to him, the trial court has rightly rejected the plaintiff's applications filed in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026. Further, he would submit that the plaintiff's witness is 71 years old.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would now give an undertaking, on instructions from his client, that the petitioner shall positively cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on a specified date to be fixed by this Court and he also gives an undertaking, on instructions, that the petitioner shall not seek any further adjournment for cross-examination on that specified date before the trial court.

6. Since the petitioner has given an unconditional undertaking that he shall cross-examine the plaintiff's witness positively on a specified date and he shall not seek any further adjournment for cross-examination on that specified date, this Court, after giving due consideration to all the factors stated supra, is

inclined to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on 01.07.2026.

7. When the main suit is posted for further hearing before the trial court, on that date, the plaintiff's witness shall be present and the petitioner's counsel shall positively complete the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness on the very same date without seeking any further adjournment. If any further adjournment is sought for by the petitioner for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness on 01.07.2026, the evidence of the plaintiff shall stand closed for further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No. 5671 of 2024.

8. After giving due consideration to the present status of the suit, this Court also deems it fit to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

9. With the aforesaid directions, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

09-06-2026

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To

1. The XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai

2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

ab AND CMP NO. 13886 OF 2026,CMP NO.

13887 OF 2026,CRP NO.

09-06-2026