LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-258

KANTAMMA W/O LATE AKKANNA REDDY, SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY AND SMT. SUGUNA W/O L. RAMA REDDY ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER, L. RAMA REDDY Vs. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE PONNUSWAMY

Decided On April 06, 2010
Kantamma W/O Late Akkanna Reddy, Smt. Sharadamma W/O Srinivasa Reddy And Smt. Suguna W/O L. Rama Reddy All Represented By Their G.P.A. Holder, L. Rama Reddy Appellant
V/S
Smt. Rajamma W/O Late Ponnuswamy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 06.01.2010 passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for reopening the plaintiff's evidence for recalling and for production of certain documents and also to examine one witness on the plaintiff's side is challenged is this writ petition.

(2.) THE plaintiff had examined herself and marked other documents. The defendants examined themselves. The two defendants and the legal representatives of the deceased firs defendant also adduced their evidence. At that stage the plaintiff - respondent herein filed an application under Section 151 CPC for reopening the case. The respondent herein also filed one more application under Order 7 Rule 14 seeking for permission to produce additional documents, seven in numbers As the plaintiff did not produce either the list of documents or the documents along with the application, the said application was dismissed. However, two other applications which were filed, one under Section 151 and the other under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC were kept pending. In such circumstances, the respondent filed one more application seeking permission to produce the documents, this time enclosing the list of documents and also the documents. All the three applications ware heard together and are allowed by the court below imposing cost of Rs. 200/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - legal representatives of deceased first defendant have filed this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the applications fifed by the petitioner was once dismissed and hence he is not entitled to maintain another application seeking for production of documents. He further contends that for the very same the plaintiffs evidence and for adducing evidence of one witness on behalf of the plaintiff, as plaintiff's witness also cannot be granted.