C. JEYAPANDIAN AND ORS. Vs. S.P. BALAGANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders dated 09.01.2012 passed in I.A. Nos. 1076 and 1077 of 2011 in O.S. No. 174 of 2011 by the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 174 of 2011 filed a suit before the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi, praying for a specific performance and for other reliefs. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. They filed I.A. Nos. 1076 and 1077 of 2011 in O.S. No. 174 of 2011 before the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi, under Order 18, Rule 17, to re-open and recall the witness of the plaintiff/respondent herein. The trial has commenced and the plaintiff/respondent side evidence is over and it is posted for evidence of the defendants/petitioners side. At that stage, the aforesaid interlocutory applications have been filed to re-open and recall the witness of the The Law Weekly, 21.3.2015 plaintiff/respondent herein and to mark certain documents through him.

(2.) The case of the petitioners defendants/petitioners is that the income tax returns relating to the years 2006 to 2008 of the plaintiff/respondent were summoned earlier and the same was also produced by him before the Court below. However, for the best reasons known to him, he had not marked the same in the evidence. Therefore, the defendants/petitioners had taken out an application to mark the said documents.

(3.) It is contended by the defendants/petitioners that being a suit for a specific performance, it is the burden of the plaintiff/respondent to establish that he had the wherewithal to purchase the property. To prove the said aspect, the income tax returns of the plaintiff/respondent were summoned. As they were not marked by him, the defendants/petitioners wanted to mark the same through the plaintiff by recalling him.