G.Vijayalakshmi v. G.T.Bakyaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 7736 OF 2026, CMP NO. 7744 OF 2026, CRP NO. 1663 OF 2026

¶1G.Vijayalakshmi D/o. Late Gopal, No.6/35, Semiamman Kovil Street, 3rd Lane, Tondiarpet, Chennai 81. Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1G.T.Bakyaraj S/o. G.Thiyagarajan, Plot No.107, D.No.9, 23rd Street, Sri Sankara Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 75.

2.Arivazhagan S/o. A.Gangadharan, Plot No.270, Flat No.D4, 41st Street, Sri Sankara Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 75. Respondent(s) CRP No. 1663 of 2026

¶1G.Vijayalakshmi D/o. Late Gopal, No.6/35, Semiamman Kovil Street, 3rd Lane, Tondiarpet, Chennai 81. Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1G.T.Bakyaraj S/o. G.Thiyagarajan, Plot No.107, D.No.9, 23rd Street, Sri Sankara Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 75.

2.Arivazhagan S/o. A.Gangadharan, Plot No.270, Flat No.D4, 41st Street, Sri Sankara Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 75. Respondent(s) PRAYER To set aside the order of dismissal dated 28.10.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.803 of 2023 on the file of Subordinate Court at Alandur and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. CRP No. 1663 of 2026 PRAYER To set aside the order of dismissal dated 28.10.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.803 of 2023 on the file of Subordinate Court at Alandur and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Varalakshmi For Respondent(s): COMMON ORDER Challenging the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.803 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Alandur, the petitioner has preferred these revisions.

¶2The trial Court dismissed the applications stating that the reasons assigned by the petitioner were not acceptable and that recall cannot be granted as a matter of routine. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions have been filed.

¶3The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner was always ready to cooperate with the proceedings, but due to the illness of the earlier counsel, cross-examination could not be conducted on the relevant day. The absence was neither willful nor wanton. However, the trial Court closed the evidence of PW1.

¶4It is also seen that the matter was adjourned for a long period, but there was no proper representation. Considering that the matter relates to a matrimonial dispute involving serious allegations requiring detailed evidence, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity.

¶5Accordingly, the order passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in H.M.O.P.No.803 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Alandur, are set aside, with a direction to the petitioner to cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶6The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 01-04-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri To

¶1The Subordinate Judge, Alandur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras. CRPeNo.e1657eofe2026 T.V.THAMILSELVIoJ. rri CRPoNo.o1657oofo2026 ANDoCMPoNO.o7736oOFo 2026,CMPoNO.o7744oOFo 2026,CRPoNO.o1663oOFo 2026 01-04-2026