FATHIMA Vs. SAINUDHEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND respondent in O.P(C)No.172 of 2013 appears through counsel. It is submitted that first respondent, husband of the 2nd respondent is laid up. Respondents have filed a joint written statement and are sailing together in the trial court. Hence notice to the first respondent in O.P(C) No.172 of 2013 is dispensed with. Respondents 1 and 2 in O.P(C)No.378 of 2013 appear though counsel. Notice to the third respondent (who is the first respondent in O.P(C)No.172 of 2013) is dispensed with for the reason above stated.

(2.) THOUGH copy of orders under challenge are not produced in this court, relevant order is extracted in O.P(C) No.378 of 2013 and considering the nature of request made by the petitioner and rejected by the court below and since both sides are agreeable to reopening the case, I am not insisting for production of a copy of the relevant orders.

(3.) DISPUTE involved in that case concerns mental capacity of the deceased Hamsa to execute certain documents. Petitioners filed the above said applications to reopen the case and permit them adduce further evidence, documentary and oral. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge.