K.Srinivasan (Died) 1.K.Perumal v. A Rolf Randolf Roops

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.08.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP.No.2057 of 2025 K.Srinivasan (died)

1.K.Perumal

2.Jayashree

3.Sathish

4.Manimegalai ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs in all CRPs' Vs. A.Rolf Randolf Roops ...Respondent/Defendant in all CRPs' Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petitions setting aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 19.11.2024 in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2015 and to dismiss the said I.A. Page No.1 of 6 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Balaganesh for Mr.T.M.Hariharan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gouthaman COMMON ORDER The present Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common orders of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore–I, dated 19.11.2024 in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2015, whereby the Trial Court allowed the following applications:

¶1to recall the defendant for further cross-examination,

¶2to recall the plaintiffs's side evidence for further cross-examination of PW1.

¶3to reopen the defendant side evidence on the side of the petitioner/defendant.

¶4to grant permission to file the petition mentioned documents All these applications were allowed on payment of costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present revisions.

¶2Heard Mr.S.Balaganesh and Mr.A.Gouthaman, learned Page No.2 of 6 counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶3Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the applications filed by the son of the defendant, who is admittedly not a party to the suit. He was only permitted to adduce evidence on behalf of his mother, the defendant.

¶4It was further submitted that a specific objection was taken in the counter affidavit, namely that the applications filed by the witness DW1, being the son of the defendant, could not be maintained, since a witness is not entitled to file any application in the suit, much less four applications of this nature.

¶5Learned counsel would also invite my attention to the impugned orders, wherein the said objection of the revision petitioners was neither discussed nor objectively dealt with.

¶6Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant relied on the Page No.3 of 6 order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2015, wherein the defendant sought permission to have her son examined as a witness on her behalf. Despite the objections of the plaintiffs, the said application was allowed on 19.11.2024. However, on a perusal of the said order, it is evident that the Court only permitted the son of the defendant to adduce evidence on behalf of the defendant. This liberty cannot not be extended to permit the witness himself to file applications, which can only be taken out by the party to the suit, namely the defendant in the present case.

¶7Unfortunately, despite the specific objections raised by the plaintiffs in their counter affidavits, and though the Trial Court acknowledged the same, it proceeded to allow all the applications, without addressing the core issue.

¶8In the light of the above, this Court finds that the permission granted to the defendant's son to depose as a witness did not entitle him to file applications before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 19.11.2024 in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2024 in O.S.No.9 of 2015 are set aside. Page No.4 of 6

¶9In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.08.2025 cda Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore. P.B. BALAJI

, J.

cda Page No.5 of 6 CRP.Nos.320,o321,o322o&o323oofo2025 CRP.Nos.320,o321,o322o&o323oofo2025 and CMP.No.2057oofo2025

21.08.2025 PageoNo.6oofo6