CRP(MD)/2693/2026 of S. Kamal Batcha Vs The Church of South Indian T on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in IA.No.23 of 2026 in OS.No.77 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed a suit for the relief of recovery of possession and for other reliefs. The petitioner/3rd defendant filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to recall PW1 for further cross-examination.

3. The petitioner states that the original suit was filed in the year 1985 for eviction. The petitioner filed a counter by claiming that the superstructure standing on the suit property was constructed by his father and has sought relief under Sections 3 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant Protection Act and the suit was dismissed, against which, the respondents preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court. Thereafter, second appeal was also filed and the second appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the issue.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner it is not known whether the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff is a church entity or a private limited company, as they have claimed that they are private limited company. In this regard, they have not produced the memorandum and article of association, etc. Therefore, the petitioner wants to cross- examine PW1, but the trial Court dismissed the petition stating that already the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity and he claimed that unsubstantiated evidence is of no use and if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the plaintiffs alone, it will unearth the truth. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and allow him to cross-examine the witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the validity of the plaintiffs has already been decided in the second appeal itself and the petitioner would not be entitled to claim under Tamil Nadu

City Tenants Protection Act. He further stated that in this case, almost 18 hearings were over. Originally on the side of the plaintiffs, PW1 was examined-in-chief on 14.08.2024 and P.W1 was already cross- examined by the petitioner on various dates i.e., 13.03.2025, 18.03.2025, 02.12.2025 and 17.04.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition in IA.No.4 of 2025 for filing additional written statement and the same was dismissed, against which, the petitioner preferred CRP(MD)No. 3808 of 2025 before this Court and this Court directed the trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of the order.

6. In the meantime, the matter was posted on 13.03.2025 for cross-examination. The petitioner cross-examined PW1 only in part and repeatedly sought further adjournments. After giving sufficient opportunities, PW1 was cross-examined on 17.04.2026 and thereafter, once again, the petitioner sought time for cross-examination and all those years, the petitioner stated that CRP is pending and he is not inclined to cross-examine the witnesses. Once again, the petitioner filed a petition in IA.Nos.20 and 21 of 2025 to reopen and recall PW1 and cross-examine the witnesses and the same was allowed and the petitioner cross-examined PW1 on 02.12.2025 in part and repeatedly sought further adjournments.

7. The respondents would further contend that even in IA.Nos.20 and 21 of 2025 for reopen and recall of PW1, the Court passed conditional order that if the petitioner has not cross-examined the witness within the specified date, he would not be provided with further opportunity. In spite of that, the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournment on the ground that Civil Revision Petition is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner cross-examined PW1 approximately, which runs 3 to 5 pages on 13.03.2025, 18.03.2025, 02.12.2025 and 17.04.2026 and thereafter, also the petitioner has not completed the cross-examination in full. Therefore, the trial Court once again cautioned him to complete the cross examination or he would not be provided with further opportunity. In spite of that, he has not completed the cross examination. Therefore, the evidence of the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed on 11.06.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for reopen and recall and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The trial Court, after elaborate discussion, noted all the dates and events of the hearing, which shows that the petitioner has already been provided with fair opportunity to cross-examine PW1. The trial Court further categorically noted that from 13.03.2025 to 17.04.2026, each day, the petitioner cross-examined at length, running to 4 or 5 pages every day and even in spite of that, he has not cross-examined the witnesses and all the hearings were utilized by him by cross-examining the witnesses at length. But till date, the petitioner has not completed the cross-examination.

10. Considering the above this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the intention of the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings. Though several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, he was not inclined to cross-examine the witness, but he was filing one after another petition to recall PW1 and cross-examine at length. Now the petitioner has stated that he is not able to cross-examine which shows the intention to drag on the proceedings and to harass the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court, has therefore, rightly dismissed the petition which needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

11. The Principal Subordinate Court, Karur, is directed to conclude the trial without any further delay and dispose of the suit in O.S.No.77 of 1985 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if any unnecessary adjournment is sought on either side, the trial Court has every right to impose costs on other side and conclude the trial.

12. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

30.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM

To The Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2693 of 2026 30.09.2026