Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2763 (MAD)

B. Mohan Kumar v. Bangaru Naidu (deceased)

2022-08-17

R.N.MANJULA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 21.04.2022 in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.4967 of 2019 on the file of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 21.04.2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.4967 of 2019. 2. The revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit; he has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.5 of 2021 to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 and the said application was dismissed on 21.04.2022. Aggrieved over that, the second defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that after the examination of the witnesses were over and the case has reached the stage of arguments, the first respondent / plaintiff has filed a petition to receive additional documents, to reopen and recall him for the purpose of marking those documents and to let in additional evidence and the same was objected by the revision petitioner. 4. When the case was posted on 15.09.2021, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not make his appearance due to the extraneous situation developed during the pandemic season. Hence, he filed a petition in I.A.No.5 of 2021 to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 and to allow the petitioner / second defendant to contest the said petition. It is further submitted that the affidavit itself was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating the ground realities. However the learned trial Judge had dismissed the petition by observing that the advocate has not filed any affidavit in support of the petition filed by the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that subsequent to the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021, the other Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2021 for reopening and recalling P.W.1 was allowed and the documents produced before the Court were also marked and now P.W.1 stands for further cross examination by the defendants. 6. It might not be possible for the counsel to make his appearance on the alleged day due to covid incidence. 6. It might not be possible for the counsel to make his appearance on the alleged day due to covid incidence. But the parties could have made their appearance and stated the inability of their counsel. Since the additional documents produced by the first respondent / plaintiff have already been received and they form part of evidence of P.W.1, in the interest of justice it is appropriate if the revision petitioner cross examine P.W.1 on those vital aspects which is now being stated with regard to the relevancy of the additional documents. It is also open to the revision petitioner to raise all these points during the arguments as well. Since the interest of the revision petitioner can be saved and his opportunity to raise his contention about the additional documents marked on the side of the plaintiff is not lost, I feel the matter need not be racked up further. 7. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.