R VENKATESAN Vs. SHARADA RAJAMANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.03.2015 passed in M.P.Nos.10 and 11 of 2015 respectively in RCOP No.705 of 2013 pending on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The respondents herein as the landlords filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.705 of 2013 on the ground of own use and occupation. The revision petitioner herein, who is a tenant, filed a detailed counter and contesting the same. Respondents/landlords' side evidence has already been over and the second respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and his cross-examination was over. When the matter was posted for further oral evidence on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, he has come forward with three applications in M.P.Nos.10 and 11 of 2015 to reopen and recall P.W.1 and M.P.No.48 of 2015 for reception of additional counter in R.C.O.P.No.705 of 2013. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed M.P.No.48 of 2015, against which, no revision has been preferred. The trial Court dismissed the applications in M.P.Nos.10 and 11 of 2015, against which, the present revisions have been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that once the trial Court allowed the application for reception of additional counter, they ought to have allowed the applications for reopen and recall P.W.1. Since he put up superstructure in 200 sq.ft. after obtaining permission from the landlords and also to prove that R.C.O.P. is not maintainable, recalling P.W.1 and marking of those documents are necessary. He further submits that in the interest of justice, reopen and recall P.W.1 is necessary. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petitions.