Sundar, v. Thomas Reegan,

O R D E R This case was listed today under the caption "for clarification". The order dated 21.06.2023 passed in this Civil Revision Petition is recalled.

¶2By the impugned order dated 21.03.2023, the Trial Court was allowed I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.293 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, with the following observations:-

¶7Coming to the case on hand, the plaintiff claims the suit property is a catchment area. The records show that defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 admit and agree that suit property belongs to 1st defendant.

¶8On perusal of the written statement of D1 and D4 it reveals that there is no conflict of interest between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4. Since Defendant No.4 admits and agrees that suit property belongs to 1st defendant .

¶9It is no doubt that defendants 1 and 4 filed separate written statements, however the interest of defendant and defendant no.4 are common and sailing together, and under no circumstances the defendant No.1 can be called as adverse party so as to cross examine DW2 who deposed for Defendant No.4.

¶10For the above said reason, it appears that defendant No.1 have common interest with Defendant No.2 as Defendant No.1 is not having an independent claim. Hence Dw1 have no right to cross-examination Dw2. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶3The first respondent/plaintiff had filed an application under Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act to cross examine the first and fourth defendants who were examined as Dw1 and DW4 herein.

¶4The fourth respondent is the Panchayat President elected in the year 2022. In the written statement filed by the fourth respondent/fourth defendant, the fourth respondent/fourth defendant has categorically given a statement against the petitioner in Paragraph No.13, which reads as under: "13. ePh;gug;G gFjpfspy; fl;Lkhdk; nra;af; $lhj vd;gJ th];jtNk. MapDk; tUtha; Jiwapdh; Gy vz;.638y; fz;l nrhj;jpw;F ve;j rl;lj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; jdp egh;

ngahpy;

gl;lh

toq;fpAs;sdh; vd;gij ,e;j gpujpthjp mwpakhl;lhh;. ,e;j gpujpthjp

gQ;rhaj;J

cWg;gpdh;fspd; jPh;khdg;gb Gy vz;.638id tPl;L kidfshf 1k; gpujpthjp tpw;gid nra;jhYk; mjpy; fl;Lkhdk; nra;a mDkjp toq;ff; $lhJ vd;W jPh;khdk; epiwNtw;wg;gl;L Nky; mjpfhhpfSf;F efy;fs; mDg;ggl;Ls;sJ. i\ jPh;khdj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; ehsJ Njjp tiu Gy vz;.638y; cs;s nrhj;Jf;fSf;F vt;tpj fl;bl mDkjpAk; ,e;j gpujpthjp mYtyfk; toq;ftpy;iy."

¶5It is the specific case of the respondent in the suit that the suit schedule property is a water body in S.No.638 in Achampadu Village.

¶6It is therefore submitted that in response to the answer elicited by the plaintiff during the cross examination of the fourth defendant on

03.03.2023, the plaintif has to further cross-examine the fourth respondent.

¶7Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner and the fourth respondent are sailing together. Therefore, there is no necessity for cross-examining the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to averments in Paragraph No.4 of the written statement of the fourth respondent. It is submitted that they are sailing together, therefore, the question of cross-examination of the fourth respondent does not arise.

¶8I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9The impugned order seeking to deny the right of cross-examination to the petitioner is liable to be interfered with as ultimately the purpose of the trial in a suit is to ascertain the truth. There are statements in the written statement filed by the fourth respondent. What the first respondent/plaintiff has elicited during examiantion are only answer to the content of Exhibit C2. This question was unnecessary as document speak for themselves.

¶10Be that as it may, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.293 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor. The Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor is directed to allow the petitioner to cross examine the fourth respondent and complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶11Thus, the impugned order passed in I.A.No.13 of 2023 stands set aside. The present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.07.2023 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No kkd To

1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor.

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

, J.

kkd

24.07.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.7025 of 2023 Sundar ...Petitioner/1st Respondent/ 1st Defendant Vs. 1.Thomas Reegan ...1st Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its District Collector, Tirunelveli. 3.The Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Public Works Department, Valliyoor, Radhapuram Taluk, 4.Anthony Vinnarasu, Achampadu Panchayat President, Achampadu, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 5.The District Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Circle, Palayamkottai. 6.The Divisional Forest Officer, Tirunelveli Forest Circle, Palayamkottai. ...Respondents 2 to 6/ Respondents 2 to 6/ Defendants 2 to 6. PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.293 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor dated 21.03.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subbiah For Respondents : Mr.G.Aravinthan