B KAMARAJ Vs. ELUMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, dismissing two interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff one to reopen the suit and the other to recall D. W. 1 for further cross-examination by the plaintiff's side in a suit for permanent injunction, are being challenged in these revision petitions.

(2.) DESPITE service of notice, the respondents defendants did not appear before this Court.

(3.) IT was a suit for permanent injunction. From the available materials and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it could be seen that after the evidence was over, the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the instant applications were filed by the plaintiff, one to reopen the case and the other to recall D. W. 1 for further cross-examination. An opportunity was given to the opposite party namely the defendants to file their counter. The lower Court dismissed both the applications on the ground that sufficient cross-examination of D. W. 1 was made by the plaintiff's side for two days, and apart from that, the points to be raised at the time of cross-examination, were covered even early, and hence, there was no necessity either to reopen the case or to recall D. W. 1.