S.Saravanan v. Ms.Radhika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA in C.S.No.670 of 2016

1. S.Saravanan Son of M.Sambandam 63/56, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, 1st Main Road, Vinayagapuram, Kolathur, Chennai600099.

Applicant(s) Vs

1. Ms.Radhika D/o.D.Parthasarathy, 234B, Lakeview Road, Surya Nagar Extension, Medavakkam, Chennai 600 100.

Respondent(s) PRAYER: This application is filed to grant permission and direct the Cross Examination of the Petitioner/Plaintiff herein as PW1 i.e. through video conferencing as per the guidelines and rules laid down by this Honble court in the above C.S.No.670 of 2016.

For Applicant(s):

Ms.Soundarya.R.

For M/s.E.Ezhil Caroline For Respondent:

Mr.M.Sathish Kumar for Mr.Adinarayana Rao

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicant / plaintiff requesting to get cross-examination during video conference.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that despite P.W.1 being present on several occasions, his cross-examination has not been completed by the learned counsel for the defendant and that has necessitated him to file this application.

3. On perusal of the records it is seen that the plaintiff has been present on several occasions and the defendant without being accommodative of his position that he is residing at Dubai, has been seeking adjournments for crossexamination. In fact on 03.04.2025 a direction has been given by this Court to conclude the process of recording evidence within four months. At least, in such case, the defendant ought to have been sensitive and cooperated for early recording of evidence and see that P.W.1 has been cross-examined without any delay.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it cannot be convenient for him to cross-examine P.W.1 through video conference. In fact the records would show that P.W.1 has been partly cross-examined. In such case, it would be idle for the parties to cooperate to make their presence on any one or two days in order to complete the cross-examination.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant, on instruction, submitted that P.W.1 would be visiting India on 16.10.2025 and 17.10.2025 and the defendant's counsel can extend the co-operation for completing the cross-examination.

6. Just because P.W.1 is going to be present for two days in India, it does not mean that D.W.1 can continue his cross-examination compulsorily for two days irrespective of the scope of the cross-examination.

7. With the above observations, this Application is disposed. 24-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes bkn

To 1.Ms.Radhika D/o.D.Parthasarathy, 234B, Lakeview Road, Surya Nagar Extension, Medavakkam, Chennai 600 100.

R.N.MANJULA J.

24-09-2025