Madras High Court
CRP/6676/2026 of R Venkatesan Vs A.Dhinakaran on 26 October 2026
CRP No. 6676 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6676 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012187562026}
AND
CMP NO. 28718 OF 2026
R Venkatesan
S/o. Ramakrishnan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
A.Dhinakaran
S/o. Anbu
..Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the Learned District Munsif at Sriperumbuthur dated 12-08-2026 made in MP.Sr.NO.3746 of 2026 in RLTOP.NO.05 of 2025
with costs and thus render justice
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Dhayalan
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.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in MP.Sr.NO.3746 of 2026 in RLTOP.NO.05 of 2025 dated 12.08.2026 wherein the court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner / tenant for cross examination of PW1.
CRP No. 6676 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The respondent has filed RLTOP No.5 of 2025 seeking for eviction of the petitioner /tenant. According to the petitioner, it is one Mathiazhagan, who was in-charge of maintaining the property and he had collected the advance amount and was also collecting the monthly rent on the ground that the original owner of the property is one Sabapathy Mohan, who is the co-brother of Mathiazhagan. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has never interacted with the respondent in his capacity as the owner of the property. Hence, the petitioner filed an application to cross examine the respondent.
4. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has admitted the tenancy and there was no dispute regarding the status of the petitioner as a tenant in the property. In view of the same, the Court concluded that there is no right given to the petitioner to cross examine the respondent.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has taken a very specific stand that it is one Mathiazhagan, who was in-charge of maintaining the property and had collected the advance amount and was also collecting the
CRP No. 6676 of 2026
monthly rent from the petitioner and he is said to be the co-brother of one T Sabapathy Mohan, who is the original owner. If that is the case, the petitioner can always call this person as witness on his side to establish the same.
6. This clarification will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioner. It is not necessary for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
7. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The District Munsif at Sriperumbuthur
CRP No. 6676 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6676 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28718 OF 2026 26-10-2026