K BALAKRISHNAN Vs. K RUTHRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund in I.A.No.195 of 2011 in A.S.No.7 of 2011, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: No doubt, the said Rudhrappa was examined as DW4 on the defendant-Balakrishnan's side during trial. However, Rudhrappa was not added as eo-nomine defendant. According to Balakrishnan, the said Rudharappa is also having equal interest along with Balakrishnan in the suit property and there should not be any misunderstanding at a subsequent period of time between Balakrishnan and Rudhrappa relating to the contesting of the matter or prosecuting the appeal. Hence, with that in mind, the said Balakrishnan and Rudhrappa joined together and filed the application under I.A.No.195 of 2011 and it is not the intention of either Balakrishnan or Rudhrappa to have a fresh trial. THE said Rudhrappa wants to argue the appeal along with Balakrishnan and nothing more and such a factor would not in any way prove to be detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, if at all the plaintiffs are having a case of their own. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would pray for setting aside the order passed by the court below.