A.K. DAMODARAN Vs. GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff as against the Order dated 12.11.2010 in I.A. No. 464 of 2010 in O.S. No. 59 of 2008 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, while passing orders in I.A. NO. 464 of 2010 in O.S. No. 59 of 2008, dated 12.11.2010, has in Para-6 categorically observed that 'already on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff, PW1 has been examined and further, on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant, he has been cross examined and after completion of his evidence, to fill up what has been omitted by the Plaintiff in his evidence, in order to fill up the same, the present petition has been filed and after examination of a witness and also after completion of the cross examination of the witness and when the case has been adjourned for production of the other witnesses to be examined and at that point of time, when a petition is filed to re-examine the said witness with a request to mark documents, the same cannot be permitted as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (d) Through Lrs. v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 5 LW 52 and based on the observation of the aforesaid decision, the petition has been dismissed without costs.

(2.) Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal in I.A.NO. 464 of 2010 in O.S. No. 59 of 2008, dated 12.11.2010, passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff has projected the instant Revision Petition before this Court.

(3.) According to the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, has erroneously dismissed I.A. NO. 464 of 2010 in O.S.No. 59 of 2008, dated 12.11.2010, by not appreciating the necessary ingredients of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the recall of the witnesses at any stage of the proceedings in a given case.