V. GAJENDHIRAN Vs. P. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.08.2013 passed in I.A.No.622 of 2013 in the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2010 and the same was filed seeking partition and separate possession of 2/9th share in the suit properties and permanent injunction and other reliefs, wherein I.A.No.622 of 2013 was filed by the defendants 1 to 7 who are respondents 1 to 7 herein, seeking an order to re-open the suit for letting further evidence by the defendants 1 to 7. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed their counter raising their objections. The Court below, having considered the plea of both sides, allowed the above Interlocutory Application. Aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs.

(3.) Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the written statement filed by the first defendant was adopted by the defendants 2 to 7 and the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 before the Court below. According to him, the fourth defendant should not be examined as leave had not been obtained from the Court. It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the first defendant is the father of the fourth defendant and they have engaged the same counsel to defend their case, hence, after examination of the first defendant as DW1, if the fourth defendant is examined as D.W.2, that would fill up the lacuna and prejudice the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. In this regard, learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Order XVIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: