✦ High Court of India · 21 Mar 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 21 Mar 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

21 Mar 2025

Bench

Court as a result of which the learned

Length

1,285 words

CMP NO. 4118 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-03-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHACMP NO. 4118 of 2025inCRP NO. 5047 OF 2024,CMP NO. 28289 OF 2024 KAUSHALYAD/o.Ramratan Shah, W/o.Mukesh Jain, No.3/5, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 1. Appellant(s) VsMukesh JainS/o.Poonamchand Jain, 25-A, Mahaveer Colony, Sector B, Ratanada, Near Khadi Bhandar, Jothpur-342001 Rajasthan (Regd. Address) Mukesh Jain C/o.N.C.Bhandari, B-23, Ashok Society-IV, Opposite Lions Hall, Race Course, Baroda-390007, Gujarat Respondent(s) CRP NO. 5047 of 2024Mukesh JainS/o. Poonamchand Chhajed, No.B-23, Ashok Society IV, Race Course, Baroda, Gujarat 390 007. Appellant(s) VsKoushalyaNo.3, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 1. Respondent(s) CMP NO. 28289 of 2024Mukesh JainS/o. Poonamchand Chhajed, No.B-23, Ashok Society IV, Race Course, Baroda, Gujarat 390 007. Appellant(s) VsKoushalyaNo.3, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 1. Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP NO. 4118 of 2025For Appellant(s): For Respondent(s): CHENNAI CRP NO. 5047 of 2024For Appellant(s): S.P.ArthiG. IndhumathiS.P. NagarajM.S. Niranjhan For PetitionerFor Respondent(s): CHENNAI CMP NO. 28289 of 2024For Petitioner : Kousalya – Party -In PersonFor Respondent(s): S.P.ArthiG. IndhumathiS.P. NagarajM.S. Niranjhan For PetitionerM.S. NiranjhanORDERThe above civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to extend the time stipulated by this Court on 18.12.2024 by a further period of 6 weeks. 2. This Court does not wish to traverse through the facts of the case. Suffice it to state that this Court on 18.12.2024 had disposed of C.R.P.No.5047 of 2024 giving the following directions: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17.1 Since the enhanced condition has been complied with, the order dated 27.09.2022 made in D.V.C. No.21 of 2014 stands restored and modified;17.2 The learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai shall receive the proof affidavit of the petitioner on 17.01.2025. He is requested to post the matter on 20.01.2025. On that day, cross-examination of P.W.1 will commence. The same shall be completed on or before 23.01.2025; 17.3 The copy of the proof affidavit of the petitioner shall be served on the party-in-person. In case, the party-in-person refuses to receive the copy, the copy thereof shall be filed along with the original proof affidavit in the Court on 17.01.2025 so as to enable the party-in-person to collect it from the Court after making due endorsement in the bundle; 17.4 Since the proof affidavit would have been presented on 17.01.2025, the party-in-person or her counsel will be entitled to cross-examine the civil revision petitioner from 27.01.2025 to 31.01.2025; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17.5 Learned Magistrate is requested to adjourn the matter day-to-day and dispose of the proceedings. He shall render the judgment in the DVC proceedings itself on or before 28.02.2025. He shall submit a report of compliance to this Court along with a copy of the final order passed in D.V.C. No.21 of 2014. 17.6 Absolute discretion is given to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to reject any request for adjournment that might be made on the side of either party in case he finds that such request is unnecessary.Therefore, the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai was directed to receive the proof affidavit of the respondent herein and a direction was issued to post the matter on 20.01.2025 for commencement of cross examination of the petitioner herein(P.W1) and that the same was to be completed on or before 23.01.2025.3. The notes of proceedings of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate would indicate that on 20.01.2025 though the petitioner was present and the respondent was ready to cross examine the petitioner, the petitioner argued that she was not ready for cross examination since she had challenged the order passed in this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis revision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the stay order was not produced, it appears that the matter was thereafter posted to 21.01.2025. On the said date, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that she was ready to cross examine the P.W1 and likewise, she had represented that the 1st respondent was also ready for cross examination. However, an argument was raised that the respondent had not filed a counter and without any counter, the petitioner cannot file a re-joinder and the matter was adjourned to 22.01.2025.4. On 22.01.2025, since the counter was not filed, the matter was adjourned to 23.01.2025 and ultimately on 23.01.2025, the proof affidavit of the 1st respondent was treated as a counter of the 1st respondent and a detailed order has been passed in Crl.M.P.No.361 of 2025 and the matter was thereafter posted to 24.01.2025 for continuation of cross examination of P.W1. On 24.01.2025 and 27.01.2025, P.W1 was cross examined in part. On 03.02.2025, P.W1 was not present and the matter was adjourned to 05.02.2025 as a last chance. On 05.02.2025, P.W.1 was cross examined in full. Thereafter, the petitioner's re-examination went on from 06.02.2025, 07.02.2025, 10.02.2025 and 12.02.2025. Therefore, the cross examination of P.W1 was not completed before 23.01.2025 as directed by this Court. On the contrary, the cross examination of P.W1 went on from 23.01.2025 to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

05.02.2025. The re-examination of the plaintiff took place from 06.02.2025 to 12.02.2025. Thereafter, though R.W1 was present for cross examination on 13.02.2025, however, the petitioner despite being present with her counsel, did not proceed with the cross examination and the matter was adjourned to 14.02.2025.5. The cross examination of R.W1 has started from 14.02.2025 onwards and to date, his cross examination continues. He has been cross examined on 9 occasions which is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in C.R.P.No.5047 of 2024 at Clause 17.4.6. A perusal of the evidence would clearly show that the cross examination of R.W1 is proceeding at a Snail's face. Further, the conduct of the petitioner has been commented upon on several occasions by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner has sought for 6 weeks extension to complete the cross examination of R.W1 immediately after the first cross examination of R.W1. Of this 6 weeks, 4 weeks has already lapsed. On 19.03.2025, the learned Judge had noted that despite the Court's direction to maintain decorum, the witness was arguing with the Court as a result of which the learned Judge was unable to proceed with the hearing and had to adjourn it to 24.03.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. This Court by its order dated 18.12.2024 had clearly given directions that the cross examination of R.W1 had to be concluded on or before 31.01.2025. However, though two months have lapsed from the given date, the petitioner has not concluded the cross examination and on the contrary, has filed an application for extension after the first date of cross examining the R.W1. 8.The ground on which the extension is sought for is that the SLP and the contempt petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, no orders has been produced to date. Therefore, it appears that the only intent of the petitioner is to prolong and protract the proceedings. 9. A perusal of the deposition would clearly show how the petitioner herein has cross-examined the witness for short periods so as to ensure that the cross examination is kept pending. The proceedings from 20.01.2025 till 19.03.2025 would show how the order of this Court in C.R.P has been observed in breach on account of the petitioner's conduct.10. Now, the matter is posted on 24.03.2025. The petitioner shall complete the cross examination of R.W1 by 27.03.2025. If the cross examination is not completed by the petitioner by the said date, a cost of Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the witness-R.W.1 for every adjournment. After 2 adjournments, the evidence of R.W.1 shall https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis stand closed. The notes of proceedings is appended along with this order in order to put into perspective the conduct of the petitioner. The petition is allowed on the above lines. 21-03-2025srnCMP NO. 4118 of 2025To1. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate,George Town, Chennai2. KaushalyaD/o.Ramratan Shah,W/o.Mukesh Jain, No.3/5, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 1.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments