NUSAIBA BEEVI Vs. MAJEED RAWHTER (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers are as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 246/2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Palakkad. The relief sought for in the Suit is for a declaration and injunction. It is stated that during the course of trial the petitioners have bring on record the certified copies of two registered documents and to recall PW1 to mark them. An application was also filed to reopen the evidence. The court below has dismissed all the three interlocutory applications. According to the petitioners, for disproving the defendant's case, DW1 requires to be cross examined with reference to the certified copies of two registered documents which have been obtained by the plaintiffs only now. Petitioners would contend that if those documents are the proper records, the controversy in the suit would be effectively resolved in favour of the petitioners and that the Suit could then be decreed. They would at any rate contend for the proper adjudication of the controversy in the Suit, those documents accompanying by Ext.P2 application ought to have been brought on record by the trial court and to facilitate the above, DW1 requires to be examined and the evidence is to be reopened. The petitioners would contend that by dismissing all the three applications as per the impugned Exts.P5, P6 and P7 orders dated 17.01.2018 the trial court has virtually shut the evidence. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant OP(C) seeking the above said reliefs.