Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/1799/2017disposed of

Ajay Kumar v. Muthulakshmi

2018-03-05Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.03.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1799 and 1800 of 2017 (PD) and C.M.P.(MD).Nos.9597 and 9598 of 2017 Ajay Kumar .. Petitioner in both the petitions / Petitioner / 8th defendant Vs.

1.Muthulakshmi 2.Sivagamasundari 3.Tamil Selvi .. Respondents 1 to 3 in both the petitions / Respondents 1 to 3 / Plaintiffs 4.Kalpana 5.Kalaiselvi 6.Santhi 7.Sivasankar 8.Jayalakshmi 9.Maheswaran 10.Balakumara @ Raju ... Respondents 4 to 10 in both the petitions/Respondents 4 to 10/ Defendants 1 to 7 COMMON PRAYER:

Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 29.06.2017, passed in I.A.Nos.602 and 619 of 2017 respectively in O.S.No.127 of 2011 by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Madurai.

For Petitioner in both the petitions : Mr.A.Joseph Jerry For 1st respondent in both the petitions : Mr.R.Rengarajan For respondents 2 & 3 in both the petitions : Mr.C.Sundara Vadivel For respondents Nos.4, 5, 8, 9 & 10 in both the petitions : No appearance For 6th respondent in C.R.P.(MD).No.1799/2017 : Mr.L.Siva For 7th respondent in C.R.P.(MD).No.1799/2017 : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For respondents 6 & 7 in C.R.P.(MD).No.1800/2017 : No appearance COMMON ORDER Both the civil revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioner / 8th defendant, challenging the order dated 29.06.2017 passed in I.A.No.602 and 619 of 2017 in O.S.No.127 of 2011, whereby and where under the Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner / 8th defendant to reopen and recall the witnesses of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant for cross examination.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the respondents have no objection in allowing both the civil revision petitions and permitting the revision petitioner / 8th defendant from cross examining the witnesses on their side. However, the Court below may be directed to dispose of the suit within a stipulated period. The said submission is recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly conceded to the request of the respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, the orders impugned in these petitions are set aside and both interlocutory applications are allowed. The Court below is directed to conduct the case on day-to-day basis and complete the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both

the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal.

4. Both the civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The 6th Additional District Judge, Madurai.

Copy to:- The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai- 23. (2 copies) + 4 ccs TO Mr.K.Rajangam , Advocate in SR Nos. 53069,53070 gcg VB/RSK/SAR2/20.03.2018/3P/8C C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1799 and 1800 of 2017 (PD) 05.03.2018