P.SUBRAMANIAM Vs. SAMIYATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff aggrieved by the Applications filed by the 5th defendant, for reopening and recalling the evidence being allowed, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) Heard Mr.C.R.Prasannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anandamoorthi, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.C.R.Prasannan, would state that the suit has been filed for a bare permanent injunction and therefore, the issue to be decided by the Trial Court was only as to who was in possession of the suit property, in view of the plaintiff as well as the defendant claiming to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. The learned counsel would further submit that the documents which were therefore sought to be produced is absolutely no relevance since it is only pertaining to the respondent's title deeds and not his vendor's title deeds. The learned counsel would also state that the plaintiff, by introduction of the additional documents cannot convert the injunction suit into a title suit. The learned counsel would therefore state that the Trial Court has erroneously allowed the Applications and seeks for the revision being allowed a prayed for.