CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.09.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21194 of 2025 1. Rev.Fr.A.Cyril Raj 2. S.Amulraj ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendants Versus M.Elias ... Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 13.08.2025 in O.S.No.154 of 2014 pending on the file of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kancheepuram. For Petitioners : M/sG.Selvi George For Respondent : Mr.S.Bala Subramaniam O R D E R Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 2. The Court below, on 13.08.2025, has passed the following adjudication (as per e-court adjudication):- "Costs memo filed is recorded. DW1, present examined in cross in full by plaintiffs side and plaintiffs in O.S.No.195 of 2023, Ex.A26, Ex.B15 to B18 documents marked. For further Cross of DW1 at request of plaintiff counsel, Call on 20.08.2025." Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that on 04.08.2025, Mr.Elias, the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014, commenced his cross-examination and completed it on 13.08.2025. After the completion of cross examination by Mr.Elias, the defendant's witness, Fr.Sebastin (D.W.1), was cross-examined by the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2023, and the said cross-examination was also completed on the same day. The case was then adjourned to 20.08.2025 for further cross-examination of D.W.1 at the request of the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014. However, the 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 Court below, suo motu, directed further cross-examination of D.W.1 by the plaintiff, by the impugned order, after specifically holding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2023 was acting in support of the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2017. The Court below has recorded reasons for permitting the plaintiff, Mr.Elias, to further cross-examine Fr.Sebastin on the allegation that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.195 of 2023 and O.S.No.43 of 2017 were acting in collusion. The Court below has concluded that there exists collusion between the plaintiffs in O.S.No.195 of 2023 and O.S.No.43 of 2017. At no stretch of imagination could this be a valid reason to permit the plaintiff in O.S.No.154 of 2014 to re-cross or further cross-examine D.W.1, Fr.Sebastin. This observation made by the learned Court below is biased. 4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Court below has specifically stated that the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2023 is sailing and supporting the plaintiff in O.S.No.43 of 2017 through cross-examination, because of which, the Court below has permitted the respondent, herein to do further cross-examination of D.W.1. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 is based on the reasons recorded on the same date, during the cross-examination of D.W.1, at the end of his deposition. It is seen from records on 13.08.2025, in the deposition of D.W.1- Sebastin George, the Court below recorded as follows:- " ( mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpd; thjpfs; mry; tHf;F vz;/ 43-2017 tHf;fpy; thjpfnshL Mjuthf bray;gLfpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpd; thjpfs; jug;gpy; bra;ag;gl;l FWf;F tprhuiz mry; tHf;F vz;/43-2017 vd;w tHf;fpy; thjpfspd; jug;gpy; Mjuthf ,Uf;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhy; mry; tHf;F vz;/154- 2014 tHf;fpd;thjpapd; jug;gpy; tHf;fwp"h; nfl;Lf;bfhz;ljw;fpz';f mry; tHf;F vz;/195-2023 tHf;fpy; thjpfs; jug;gpy; bra;ag;gl;l rhl;rpapd; FWf;F tprhuiz bjhlh;ghf kW FWf;F tprhuiz bra;a ntz;LnfhSf;fpz';f xj;jpitf;fg;gLfpwJ.)" 6. It is seen from the impugned order that the Court below has allowed for further cross-examination of D.W.1 upon the request of the plaintiff's counsel. This Court is of the view that there is no other option 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 except to accept the reasons recorded by the trial Court in permitting the further cross-examination of D.W.1, at request of plaintiff's counsel. 7. It is well settled that power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the Court trying the suit. The parties to the suit can not take any objection they be permitted to cross examine any witness without leave of the Court. The Court may consider such a request if it is found to be necessary in the interest of justice. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly exercised its power in allowing the request made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff's for further cross-examination of D.W.1 and there is no violation of Principal of natural justice (or) procedure (or) law. 8. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the docket order dated 13.08.2025 in O.S.No.154 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kancheepuram. 9. Considering the age of the suit and also considering the stage of the proceedings, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kancheepuram, is requested to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.154 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 24.09.2025 av Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No To The learned Principal Sub Judge, Kancheepuram. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and CMP.No.21194 of 2025 M. JOTHIRAMAN, J. av CRP.No.4104 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21194 of 2025 24.09.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis