PILLAMMA AND ORS. Vs. MUNITHAYAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the defendants 1(a) to 1(d) in O.S.No.176/2000. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2014 rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, they have filed this writ petition.

(2.) Respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession and also declaration declaring that the Sale Deed dated 28.3.2003 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as null and void. The contesting deceased first defendant Sanjeevappa had filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues. Parties went for trial. After conclusion of the trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint. Since the said amendment was unopposed, the Trial Court allowed the application. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and examined two more witnesses. In the meanwhile, the first defendant died. His legal representatives were brought on record. They are the petitioners before this Court. Though they have cross examined PWs.1 to 3 and examined some more witnesses in their favour, they state that they have not cross examined the three witnesses. After conclusion of the trial, the matter has been posted for arguments. At that stage, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been filed seeking for reopening of the cases of PWs.1 and 2 and permit them to cross examination. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records.