RAGAVENDRA RAJA Vs. S. RAJAGOPAL ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the fair and final order passed in I.A.No. 96 of 2014 in I.A.No. 30 of 2013 in O.S.No. 36 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sathankulam, the plaintiff has filed the above civil revision petition.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No. 36 of 2011 for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed ex parte, since the defendants remained absent. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application in I.A.No. 30 of 2013, to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and when the said application was pending for enquiry, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No. 96 of 2014 to re -open I.A.No. 30 of 2013.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the application, the revision petitioner has stated that for the purpose of examining the Sub Registrar for producing a cancelled deed, dated 24.01.2014 reopening of the application is necessary. It is brought to the notice of this Court, the revision petitioner has obtained a certified copy of the cancellation deed dated 24.01.2014. Therefore, the Sub Registrar, cannot produce the original document before the Trial Court. That apart as already stated since the application was not closed and pending, there is no necessity for filing the present application to reopen the application for let in oral evidence.