C. MOTHICHAND Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. The suit is laid for damages on the ground that considerable injury was caused to the plaintiff in registering a document on the basis of a certain circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, the second respondent herein, which according to the plaintiff, was contrary to the earlier decision of this Court in a writ proceedings. The details are not very relevant for the purpose here.

(2.) The reason which the plaintiff offers in the affidavit filed in support of these applications is that he expected the defendants to step into the witness box, and was keen to offering certain facts to the defendants or any of the witnesses who my appear on their behalf, but since the defendants chose not to let in any oral evidence, he had to adduce evidence on his side. The trial Court has dismissed those applications, and has opined the plaintiff does not have right to reopen his side evidence and to summon the defendants to adduce evidence.

(3.) The learned counsel took exception to the line of reasoning of the alleged trial Court. He placed reliance on of the judgment of this Court in V.K.Periasamy @ Perianna Gounder Vs. D.Rajan [(2001) 2 MLJ 235 : AIR 2001 Mad 410] and judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Syed Yasin Vs. Syed Shaha Mohd. Hussain [ AIR 1967 Kant 237 : AIR 1967 Mys 37].