K.S. RAMANATHAN Vs. N.K.T. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 116 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Dindigul. The said suit is for partition. The trial was taken up and the evidence of parties were closed and after arguments of the plaintiffs, the case was posted for defendants' side arguments. At that time, the petitioner herein/1st defendant came forward with three applications in I.A. Nos. 182 to 184 of 2001 for the purpose of reopening the case, receiving additional written statement and for recalling D.W.1. The purpose for filing those applications is that even though the 1st defendant has pleaded about the registered Will executed by his paternal uncle on 23.02.1947, he could not produce the same during earlier proceedings of the case and he got only recently and for its production, he filed those applications. It is stated that by oversight some averments were not mentioned in the written statement about the loss of registered Will dated 23.02.1947 executed by the petitioner's paternal uncle late Meenatchisundaram Pillai. Those applications were hotly contested by the other side. They filed counter stating that the petitioner herein/1st defendant has come forward with a new plea of alleged loss of a material document by way of third additional written statement to fill up the lacuna of non-production of the alleged original Will of the year 1947, now after 7 years. If the third additional written statement is allowed to be filed, it will virtually change the nature of the defence itself and it will require denova trial and take away the valid admissions made by D.W.1 and it will also alter the very basis of the suit and defence. The non-production of the original Will, dated 23.02.1947, will go to the root of the defence and it is also fatal to the case of the defence and it cannot be substituted by any explanation by way 3rd additional written statement. Hence, the applications have to be dismissed.

(2.) After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Dindigul, dismissed all the three applications observing that no reason was furnished by the petitioner/ 1st defendant for non-production of the document for 7 years and that in case, if the applications are allowed, it will prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs and that the 1st defendant failed to state the reasons for loss of the Will in the written statement.

(3.) The said orders passed by the Court below are challenged in these revision petitions.