B. KAMESH Vs. B. SANTHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2013 made in I.A. Nos. 4114 to 4116 of 2012 in O.S. No. 12844 of 2010 on the file of XVII Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the first respondent herein as a plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit property against her brothers and sister. After oral evidence of both sides were closed and arguments heard and when the matter was posted for judgment, the plaintiff has come forward with the applications in I.A. Nos. 4114 to 4116 of 2012 to reopen the case and to recall the evidence of P.W.1 and to condone the delay in reception of additional documents. The trial Court, after considering the submissions made by both sides, allowed the applications, against which, the present revision petitions have been preferred by the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court reported in, 2014 (3) CTC 518 (S.Ramasamy v. Perumal and others), wherein it has followed the Apex Court decision reported in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, : 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 573 (SC) and held that after commencement of trial, case cannot be reopened and witness cannot be recalled to fill up the lacunae. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of the revision petitions.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.