AMALADOSS STEPHEN Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts which are necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus: The suit is of the year 2001 namely O.S.No. 985 of 2001, which was renumbered as O.S.No. 299 of 2004, which is one for recovery of possession of immovable property. On the plaintiff's side, the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined in extenso and the plaintiff's side was closed. Thereafter, two interlocutory applications were filed by the defendants. However, those two I.As were resisted by the plaintiff and those two I.As were dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st defendant would submit that in the previous litigation, a counter was filed by the P.W. 1/ plaintiff herein averring certain facts. It has become necessary for the defendants to confront P.W.1 with the previous counter and then, only under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, it would become evidence. While P.W. 1 was in the witness box, the defendant was in possession of only a photo copy of the P.W. 1's previous counter in the earlier litigation and hence, he could not confront P.W.1 with that legally. Now only, the revision petitioner is in possession of a certified copy of the counter of P.W.1. The relevant documents to be numbered are:

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that for two months P.W.1 was available for cross examination and that the cross-examination was conducted in extenso also and in such a case, the defendants cannot be allowed to capitalize their own latches and the suit itself is of the year 2001.