KEMPAMMA Vs. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the just and proper order dated 12.04.2018 as passed by the Trial Court in this case.

(2.) It appears from the perusal of record that the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to the suit schedule properties (O.S. No. 358/2004), as filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners is pending since the year 2004. On 104.2018, at the stage when the matter was fixed for final arguments, the substituted counsel filed no-objection power for the plaintiffs/petitioners with the applications (I.A. Nos. 19 and 20) seeking recall of the defendants' witness D.W.1 for cross-examination. It was stated in the applications that the previous counsel for the plaintiffs could not appear before the Court on 09.04.2018 and hence, the Court closed the evidence of D.W.1 and posted the matter for arguments; and then, the previous counsel gave no objection vakalath on 11.04.2018. It was further stated in the applications that the cross examination of D.W.1 was necessary in the interest of justice and else, it would cause severe hardship and injury to the plaintiffs/petitioners.

(3.) It appears that upon taking up such applications, the Trial Court was poised to allow the same for immediate further proceedings but then, learned counsel for the plaintiffs was not ready to cross-examine the defendant's witness. Taking note of this fact as also the age of the suit, the Trial Court rejected the applications and posted the matter for arguments of the defendants, after taking the arguments of the plaintiffs as nil. The impugned order dated 12.04.2018 reads as follows: