Skip to content


Harichandran Vs. M. Kanagaraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 1978 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 9313 of 2016
Judge
AppellantHarichandran
RespondentM. Kanagaraj
Excerpt:
.....application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. hence the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition for the relief stated supra. 3. during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the above civil revision petition., may be disposed of with an observation to the trial court to consider the dictum laid down by the honourable division bench of this court in ravi and another .vs. ramar reported in 2008 (1) ctc 36, at the time of seeking permission to examine the respondent at a later stage. 4. in view of the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court disposed of the civil revision petition, with an observation that it is open to the revision petitioner to agitate before the trial court.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi dated 15.3.2016.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, dated 15.03.2016, filed under Order 18 Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code, to scrap the chief examination of P.W.1.

2. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the trial Court without adverting to the scope of Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. The learned Rent Controller has completely over-looked the fact that the person who has now filed the proof affidavit is totally a stranger to the proceedings and the purpose for examining the third party is not for any genuine reason, but only to fill up the lacunae, at a later stage while examining the respondent herein as P.W.2. The learned Rent Controller ought to have directed the respondent herein to file an application in order to seek the leave of the Court under Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. Without adverting to the said contention, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the application stating that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence the Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition for the relief stated supra.

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the above Civil Revision Petition., may be disposed of with an observation to the trial Court to consider the dictum laid down by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Ravi and another .vs. Ramar reported in 2008 (1) CTC 36, at the time of seeking permission to examine the respondent at a later stage.

4. In view of the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petition, with an observation that it is open to the revision Petitioner to agitate before the trial Court in the appropriate time by relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //