Nagabushanam (Deceased) V.Loganathan (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Girija And 5 Others v. Mrs. Padmavathy @ Padma And 4 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA A No. 4791 of 2025 & A NO. 4792 OF 2025 in TOS NO. 1 OF 2013

1. NAGABUSHANAM (Deceased) V.Loganathan (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Girija and 5 others E-70/15, 3rd Cross Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai 600 082. and 5 Others

2. Mrs.Rambai No.19, PE West Mada Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

3. Mrs.Latha D3 to D6 Residing at No.14D, Chinnamettu Kuppam, Maduranaicken Street, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095.

4. Mr.Chandramohan Chennai

5. Mr.Soundararajan Chennai

6. Nandhini Chennai Applicant(s)

Vs

1. Mrs. Padmavathy @ Padma and 4 others Chennai 2.Nandakumar D2 to D5 Residing at No.20, Gajalakshmi Colony 1st Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030 3.Mrs.Lakshmi BAi Chennai 4.Dhanalakshmi Chennai 5.Rajeswari Chennai Respondent(s) A No. 4792 of 2025

1. NAGABUSHANAM (Deceased) V.Loganathan (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Girija and 5 otheers W/o.Late.S.P.Venkateswaralu, No.20/4, Gajalakshmi Colony, 1st Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai - 30.

2.Mrs.Rambai No.19, PE West Mada Street, Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

3.Mrs.Latha D3 to D6 Residing at No.14D,

Chinnamettu Kuppam, Maduranaicken Street, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095.

4.Mr.Chandramohan Chennai 5.Mr.Soundararajan Chennai 6.Nandhini Chennai Appellant(s) Vs

1. Mrs. Padmavathy @ Padma and 4 others Chennai 2.Nandakumar D2 to D5 Residing at No.20, Gajalakshmi Colony 1st Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030 3.Mrs.Lakshmi BAi Chennai 4.Dhanalakshmi Chennai 5.Rajeswari Chennai Respondent(s)

PRAYER To allow the Petitioner/Defendants to reopen to cross examine P.W.3 Mr.V.Suresh Kumar, to the Judges Summons in the Petition. A No. 4792 of 2025 PRAYER To allow the Defendant/Petitioner to recall and cross examine P.W.3 Mr.V.Suresh Kumar, to the Judges Summons in the petition. In both applications.

For Applicant(s):

M/S.M. Anbalagan For Respondent(s):

LJ.Vengatesh COMMON ORDER The petition has been filed by the 8th defendant seeking to recall the witness, PW.3.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the earlier cross-examination of PW.3, certain questions were inadvertently omitted, and therefore, this petition has been filed to recall the said witness for further crossexamination.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a counter and strongly objected to the petition, contending that the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed, and PW.3, being an attesting witness as well as a practising advocate, need not be recalled at this stage.

4. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is seen

that only a vague and general statement has been made regarding the necessity of recalling PW.3. The applicant has merely stated that some questions were omitted to be put to the witness, without specifying their relevance or materiality.

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that PW.3 was a practising advocate at the time of his examination, and that certain questions which were not asked earlier are now sought to be posed upon reconsideration. It thus appears that the present application has been filed as an afterthought.

6. Even according to the applicant's own admission, he consciously chose not to put certain questions and closed the cross-examination of PW.3. Therefore, the same witness cannot be recalled at the mere whims and fancies of the applicant to pose additional questions at a later stage.

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in these petitions. The reasons assigned are neither satisfactory nor convincing. Hence, these applications stand dismissed .

16-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes jrs

R.N.MANJULA J.

jrs A No. 4791 of 2025 & A NO. 4792 OF 2025 in TOS NO. 1 OF 2013 16-10-2025