SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT Vs. M K MUNIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed these writ petitions against the common order passed by the trial court dated 28.11.2017 made in O.S. No.306/2010 rejecting the application filed under Section 151 of CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case from the stage of arguments and to lead further chief-examination of P.W.1, respectively.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property based on the gift deed dated 20.09.1971 executed by the father of the plaintiff and his brothers. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the alleged gift deed was not at all executed by the defendant. There is no acceptance of gift deed and sought for dismissal of the suit. After completion of the evidence, when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid two applications on the ground that he filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendant and the case was set down for arguments of the plaintiff. At the time of filing the suit, he has furnished some documents which have been marked as exhibits. He wanted to produce some more documents for better adjudication of the case. Therefore, he sought to produce the same along with the applications. Non production of the documents before the trial Court is neither intentional nor deliberate. It was purely bonafide. Therefore, it is just and proper to re-open and recall P.W.1 to lead further chief examination in the case.

(3.) The said applications were opposed by the defendant by filing objection and specifically contended that the plaintiff concluded his evidence long back. Thereafter, the defendant lead his evidence examining himself as D.W.1 and the plaintiff cross examined D.W.1 on 21.01.2017. The matter was posted for argument on merits. The plaintiff, who took several adjournments to argue the matter on merits has now filed present applications, which are highly belated. The plaintiff has stated that he wanted to produce some more documents, which they have not produced. At least they have not specified which documents they are going to produce and when the matter is posted for arguments. The matter cannot be re-opened and sought for dismissal of both applications.