S DURAISAMY Vs. NALLAPPAGOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 2.3.2010, made in I.A.No.159 of 2010, in O.S.No.391 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.

(2.) The petitioners had filed the suit, in O.S.No.391 of 2004, for a decree directing division of the suit properties into three equal shares, by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant, jointly and to put them in separate possession of the said properties and for other consequential reliefs, including the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents.

(3.) The petitioners had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.159 of 2010, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to pass an order recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of re-examination. In the said application filed by the petitioners it had been stated that the second petitioner, who is the second plaintiff in the suit, had been examined as P.W.1. Subsequently, he had filed a reply statement, upon which additional issues had been framed. An additional proof affidavit had also been filed. He had also been cross examined. During the course of the cross examination a question had been put to him as if he had not read the contents of the reply statement. The second petitioner had also admitted that he had not read the reply statement since the pleadings were in English. However, he had admitted that his counsel had read over the matter to him and therefore, the contents were well known to him. Thus, an ambiguity had arisen in the statements made by the second petitioner. In such circumstances, after the cross examination, the counsel for the petitioners had sought permission for his re-examination, in respect of the statements made with regard to the contents of the reply statement. Since, the request was objected to by the respondents, the second petitioner was not in a position to clarify the ambiguity caused in the statements made by him, by way of an explanation. In such circumstances, an interlocutory application had been filed praying to recall P.W.1, for re-examination.