GEETHA Vs. S.SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 25.04.2012 in I.A. No. 75 of 2012 in I.A. No. 48 of 2012 in O.S. No. 322 of 2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal. The Learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, while passing orders in I.A. No. 75 of 2012 in I.A. No. 48 of 2012 in O.S. No. 322 of 2004, has clear terms observed that "... The reason that the Counsel was out of station is not at all a ground to allow this petition. Further, in I.A. No. 48 of 2012 also it was stated that the Counsel was held up in Tiruchengode and the Counsel could not attend the Court when this case was called. Further as many as four petitioners are parties and none of them attend on those hearings. Further in the affidavit, it is simply stated that the Counsel was out of station and no acceptable reason is stated. Hence, no merit in this petition and is to be dismissed" and resultantly, dismissed the petition without costs.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants submits that the main Suit in O.S. No. 322 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court is one of Partition and at the time of trial, the Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants have not been in a position to cross examine P.W.2 and consequently, the cross examination of P.W.2 has been closed. As such, the Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants have been perforced to file I.A. No. 48 of 2012 for recalling witness P.W.2. However, the said I.A. No. 48 of 2012 has been dismissed for default on 03.04.2012 because of non appearance of the Counsel on the side of the Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants.

(3.) The main argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioners/9 to 12 Defendants is that a Court of Law is not supposed to harp on technicalities. Per contra, it is to deliver substantial Justice to the parties, overriding technicalities or hyper technicalities.