Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1796/2026 of Parimala Vs Vijayalakshmi on 7 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07/09/2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and1797 of 2026
and
CMP(MD)Nos.8715 and 8719 of 2026
1.CRP(MD)No.1796 of 2026:-
Parimala : Petitioner/1st Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Vijayalakshmi : 1st Respondent/Petitioner/2nd Defendant
2.Balakrishnan
Arumugam (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Meghala : Respondents 2 to 4/R2, R4 and R5/
Defendants 1,4 and 5
PRAYER: This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 01/04/2026 made in IA
No.11 of 2026 in OS No.386 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
2.CRP(MD)No.1797 of 2026:-
Parimala : Petitioner/1st Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026
1.Vijayalakshmi : 1st Respondent/Petitioner/2nd Defendant
2.Balakrishnan
Arumugam (Died)
3.Sakunthala
4.Meghala : Respondents 2 to 4/R2, R4 and R5/
Defendants 1,4 and 5
PRAYER: This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 01/04/2026 made in IA
No.12 of 2026 in OS No.386 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
For Petitioner
: M/s.K.Vidya
For 1st Respondents
: Mr.G.Aravinthan
for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
CRP(MD)No.1796 of 2026 is filed against the order, dated 01/04/2026 made in IA No.11 of 2026 in OS No.386 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, whereas CRP(MD)No.1796 of 2026 has been filed challenging the order, dated 01/04/2026 made in IA No.12 of 2026 in OS No.386 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff states that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for partition. The
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026 defendants are her brothers and sisters. During the pendency of the suit, the third defendant (Arumugam), who is one of the brothers, died. On 02/12/2019, the 2nd defendant did not contest the suit and was set ex- parte. Thereafter, she filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2024 seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. However, she withdrew the said petitions. Thereafter, without taking any steps for about one year, she again filed similar petitions in I.A.Nos.11 and 12 of 2026 seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination. The said petitions were allowed by the Trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitions seeking the same relief had already been filed and withdrawn by the 2nd defendant and, therefore, the subsequent petitions ought not to have been entertained. It was also submitted that the suit is of the year 2011 and that the repeated petitions are filed only with a view to protract the proceedings. If the impugned orders are permitted to stand, the respondents would further prolong the proceedings and cause hardship to the petitioner. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petitions.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/2nd defendant submitted that the 1st respondent/2nd defendant was set ex-parte on 02/12/2019 and, therefore, she could not cross- examine P.W.1, who had already been examined on 02.12.2019 and 10.12.2019. Hence, she filed I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2024 seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 to enable her to cross-examine her. In the meantime, the third defendant, who was one of the brother, died and the matter was posted for taking steps to implead his legal heirs in the suit. Since the existing petitions were required to be amended in view of the subsequent developments, the Trial Court directed the 2nd defendant either to amend the petitions or to withdraw the same. Accordingly, the 1st respondent/2nd defendant withdrew the petitions with liberty to file fresh petitions. Since such liberty was granted, she subsequently filed the present petitions seeking the same relief of reopening and recalling the evidence of P.W.1.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that, till date, the 1st respondent/2nd defendant has not cross-examined P.W.1 and that, if an opportunity is not granted, she would be put to serious hardship. Therefore, in the interest of justice, he prayed that an opportunity may be
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026 granted to the 1st respondent/2nd defendant to cross-examine P.W.1 and prayed for dismissal of the civil revision petitions.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is true that the suit is of the year 2011. It is also true that the 1st respondent/2nd defendant was set ex-parte and that P.W.1 had already been examined on 02.12.2019 and 10.12.2019. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/2nd defendant filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was allowed. Subsequently, she filed petitions seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination. The said petitions were withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petitions. In view of the specific liberty granted by the Trial Court, the 1st respondent/2nd defendant filed the present impugned petitions seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of P.W.1.
8. Though there was some delay in filing the fresh petitions, considering the fact that the 1st respondent/2nd defendant has not yet cross-examined P.W.1 and that the earlier petitions were withdrawn with
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026 liberty to file fresh petitions, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be granted to him in the interest of justice and to provide a fair opportunity to defend the case. However, taking into consideration the delay on the part of the 1st respondent, the cost imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/- each in both petitions.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of and the impugned orders of the Trial Court is confirmed, subject to the following modification:-
(i) The 1st respondent/2nd defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- each in both petitions, as costs to the petitioner/plaintiff within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to pay the said costs within the stipulated time, the present petitions shall stand dismissed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/2nd defendant shall complete the cross-examination of P.W.1 within one week from the date of her appearance before the Trial Court.
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026
10. With the above directions, both Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
07.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No er
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and 1797 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. er To,
1. The District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.
2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRP(MD)Nos.1796 and1797 of 2026 07/09/2026
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )
( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 10:37:31 am )