AIYADURAI Vs. BALAIYAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM adverting upon the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2009 in C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the order dated 20.6.2008 in I.A. No.42 of 2008 in O.S. No.25 of 2003 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Port Novo, the Revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have focussed the present civil revision petition.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court, viz. learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, while passing the judgment in C.M.A. No.4 of 2008 on 30.9.2009, has among other things, observed that no endeavour was made on the side of the Appellants (revision petitioners/defendants) to cross-examine the witness P.W.1/Balaiya and further cross-examination of P.W.1 was not done and added further not a single appellant had appeared before the Court to conduct the proceeding in O.S. No.25 of 2003 and they had deliberately protracted the matter and came to a resultant conclusion that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.42 of 2008 in dismissing the petition was a proper one and could not be interfered with and dismissed the Appeal without costs.

(3.) THE Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants projects the argument that the respondent/plaintiff (P.W.1) was already cross-examined in part on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and atleast both the Courts below ought to have allowed the I.A. No.42 of 2003 on terms, to compensate the respondent/plaintiff for any damages suffered by him.