← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1452/2016dismissed

Rajasekaran, S/O Late Devanbu v. Chandral W/O Late Devanbu

2016-06-07Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1452 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8017 of 2016 1.Rajasekaran 2.Roja Preethi 3.Minor Pavithra rep by her next friend/father Rajasekaran ... Petitioners vs 1.Chandral 2.Suganthi 3.Esac 4.Latha Mary ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, passed in I.A.No.79 of 2016 in O.S.No.289 of 2010 on 12.02.2016. For Petitioners :

Mr.N.Manokaran *****

O R D E R

This revision challenges the order of learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, passed in I.A.No.79 of 2016 in O.S.No.289 of 2010 on 12.02.2016.

2. The Petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No. 289 of 2010 before the Court below for partition, separate possession and consequential permanent injunction. The trial in the suit commenced, witnesses were examined and the suit was posted for oral arguments. At such stage, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 79 of 2016 to re-open the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs seeking to mark certain documents.

3. The first respondent/first defendant has given a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Kanjikoil Police Station against the petitioners. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and it was taken on file in C.C. No. 13 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. According to the petitioners, during the course of investigation in the criminal case, the first defendant has allegedly admitted the possession of the suit property by the petitioners before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanjikoil Police Station on 07.10.2010. Therefore, the petitioners have filed in I.A. No. 79 of 2016 to reopen the evidence to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police as a witness in the suit.

4. Admittedly, the suit was posted for arguments. During the course of trial, the petitioners have not chosen to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manjikoil. There was delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the petition

to reopen the evidence and to examine the Sub-Inspector of Police as a witness. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, DW1 in the suit was crossexamined and during his cross-examination answers were elicited about investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanjikoil Police Station. In the said circumstances, the Court below passed an order of dismissal.

5. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.06.2016 Index:yes/no Internet:yes To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai

C.T.SELVAM, J kpr Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1452 of 2016 07.06.2016