BALASELVI Vs. ADHIMOOLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff has preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 05.01.2011 in I.A. No. 96 of 2010 in O.S. No. 152 of 2006 passed by the Learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam. The Learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Vridhachalam, while passing the impugned order in I.A. No. 96 of 2010 in O.S. No. 152 of 2006 on 05.01.2011, on the file of the Trial Court has in crystal clear terms observed that

(2.) According to the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Trial Court should have seen that Dhanavalli, being the Power Agent of the Respondent/First Defendant cannot, without bona fide, file an application under Order III Rule 2 of the CPC.

(3.) The main plank of attack projected by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that the Respondent/First Defendant was already examined as DW1 and also cross-examined in part and only at that point of time, I.A. No. 96 of 2010 has been projected on the side of the Respondent/First Defendant, which, ought not to have been allowed by the Trial Court in the interest of justice.