MRS MARY POTHAN W/O LATE LALITHA SAMUEL POTHAN, MR. DEEPAK GEORGE POTHAN S/O LATE LALITH SAMUEL POTHAN AND MRS REESA POTHAN @ REESA JAMES D/O LATE LALITH SAMUEL POTHAN Vs. M/S. NANDI HOUSING PVT. LTD. NO. 56, BOWRING HOSPITAL ROAD, BANGALORE 560

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed against the order dated 14/9/2011, passed in O.S.No. 509/95, wherein the applications, - I.A. Nos. 20 and 21, filed by the petitioners herein were dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners' late father along with his brother have filed a suit for declaration and injunction. In the said suit, the defendants have also filed a counter claim. After the pleadings were complete the matter was set down for evidence. Petitioners' father who was the first plaintiff did not let in any evidence. The second plaintiff let in evidence as P.W. 1. After evidence was concluded., the matter was set down for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners as L.Rs. of plaintiff No. 1 filed applications I.As.20 and 21 under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to adduce their evidence as L.Rs. of the deceased plaintiff No. 1. The said application was dismissed by order dated 14/9/2011 (Annexure W). The said order is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for parties and on perusal of the material on record, I find that in support of the case of the plaintiffs, the petitioners' father who was plaintiff No. 1 did not step into the witness box. He did not let in any evidence. It is only the second plaintiff who let in evidence as P.W. 1. The said evidence has been let in both on the plaintiffs case as also with regard to the counter claim. When the petitioners' father had not let in any evidence at all and had allowed the second plaintiff to let in evidence, the L.Rs. of the first plaintiff later on, finding that there is some lacuna in the evidence cannot be allowed to let in evidence. No material is forthcoming as to why the petitioners' father has not let in any evidence in the matter. Therefore, no opportunity can be given to the L.Rs. of the plaintiff No. 1 to lead evidence. The same would only amount to granting the plaintiffs a second opportunity to prove their case, which is not permissible. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is just and proper and the same would not call for any interference in these writ petitions.