Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3188 (MAD)

Manikandan v. Senthil Manian

2014-09-09

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner is the first defendant and the respondent is the first plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.161 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Trichirappalli. The respondent along with three others filed a suit for recovery of vacant possession of suit property. The petitioner filed written statement in the month of January, 2013. After framing necessary issues the suit was posted for trial. The first respondent was examined as P.W.1. One Rajendran was examined as P.W.2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.390 of 2014 on 02.06.2014 to reject and struck off P.W.2 Rajendran's evidence. According to the petitioner, he has initiated legal proceedings and filed suit against the said Rajendran and obtained decree against him. The decree has become final. The said Rajendran was present in the Court all along when the respondent was examined as P.W.1 in the Court and at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore, he filed the present application in I.A.No.390 of 2014 to reject and struck off the evidence of P.W.2 Rajendran. The respondent opposed the same by filing counter affidavit. The learned II Additional District Judge considering all the pleadings, materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, dismissed the application. Against the said order of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The main contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that P.W.2 was in Court throughout when the respondent was examined and cross-examined. Therefore, his evidence must be rejected. The learned Judge has rejected his contention holding that even if P.W.2 was not present in Court during the examination and cross-examination of P.W.1, the certified copy of the evidence of P.W.1 would have been obtained by the counsel for the petitioner and P.W.2 could have deposed on the same lines. The learned II Additional District Judge considered the provision of law referred to and the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner and rejected the said contention as those provisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. The learned II Additional District Judge has not committed any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 4. The learned II Additional District Judge has not committed any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The learned II Additional District Judge also pointed out that the presence of P.W.2 in Court, was not objected when P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined. The learned II Additional District Judge also has taken note of the fact that at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the presence of P.W.2 was recorded in the proceedings. Hence, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.