ARUMAIAMMAL Vs. MANAMAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TODAY, when the above C.M.P.No.4598 of 2001 has been taken up for consideration, with the consent of both parties, the main civil revision petition itself is taken up for finally being heard and decided.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.191 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai has filed the above civil revision petition as against the fair and decretal order dated 29.1.2001 made in I.A.No.704 of 2000 in the said suit thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to reopen the suit for further evidence.

(3.) THE crux of the case of the petitioner is that till the fag end of the trial, she was under the bona fide impression that the 4th defendant in the suit, being the seller of the properties, that she derived from her deceased mother, under Exs.A.2 to A.4, would enter into the box and depose to the effect of the ownership, sale etc., but since she did not choose to examine herself only after the close of evidence, the petitioner got disappointed and thought it fit to examine the purchasers from the 4th respondent under Exs.A.2 to A.4, which according to the petitioner is highly necessary and essential to establish her case in the suit. It is pleaded on the part of the 4th respondent that there had been an earlier suit in O.S.No.31 of 1981 conducted in between the 4th respondent and the father of the respondents 1 and 2 viz Rangasamy in the Court of District Munsif, Puddukottai, which was decided in her favour till the second appeal in High Court and that is sufficient to decide the rights of the parties in the present suit and therefore' would oppose the application on the ground that it is only a dilatory tactics that are being adopted on the part of the petitioner and the reasons assigned on the part of the petitioner are not tangible to allow the application and would pray to dismiss the said petition.