Thilakam and Others Vs. Radhakrishan

Thilakam and Others vs Radhakrishan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 10, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1185770

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1185770
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: T. Ravindran
Decided On: Feb 10, 2017
Case Number: CRP.(PD) Nos. 381 & 382 of 2017 & CMP.No. 1684 of 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thilakam and Others

Respondent

Radhakrishan

Excerpt

(prayer: c.r.p.(pd)no.381 of 2017: this civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of the principal district munsif, cuddalore passed in i.a.no.808 of 2016 in o.s.no.127 of 2014. c.r.p.(pd)no.382 of 2017:this civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of principal district munsif, cuddalore passed in i.a.no.809 of 2016 in o.s.no.127 of 2014.) 1. the petitioners/defendants moved an application to re-open plaintiffs evidence and recall pw1 for further cross examination on the footing that on account of inadvertence, certain questions were omitted to be put to pw1 during the cross examination. the same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. the trial court on a consideration of the case of both parties, found that no proper and valid reason has been given by the defendants to recall pw1. it was also found by the trial court that the application was moved by the defendant only to fill up the lacuna and the trial court accordingly rejected the applications preferred by the defendants. 3. i do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial court. accordingly, the civil revision petitions do not merit acceptance and are dismissed. consequently connected the miscellaneous petition is closed. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: C.R.P.(PD)No.381 of 2017: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore passed in I.A.No.808 of 2016 in O.S.No.127 of 2014.

C.R.P.(PD)No.382 of 2017:This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal orders dated 03.01.2017 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore passed in I.A.No.809 of 2016 in O.S.No.127 of 2014.)

1. The petitioners/defendants moved an application to re-open plaintiffs evidence and recall PW1 for further cross examination on the footing that on account of inadvertence, certain questions were omitted to be put to PW1 during the cross examination. The same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The Trial Court on a consideration of the case of both parties, found that no proper and valid reason has been given by the defendants to recall PW1. It was also found by the Trial Court that the application was moved by the defendant only to fill up the lacuna and the trial court accordingly rejected the applications preferred by the defendants.

3. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions do not merit acceptance and are dismissed. Consequently connected the miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2017 Same Parties Thilakam and Others vs Radhakrishan Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge T. Ravindran