SUBARAYALU NAIDU Vs. ARIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.789 of 1999 before the III Additional District Munsif, Pudhucherry. He filed the suit for declaration of his absolute title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with hs peaceful possession and enjoyment. When the suit was taken up for trial, the petitioner filed necessary and relevant documents to prove his title and possession. THE respondents filed documents to prove their title to the property which is situated n the eastern side of the suit property. After examination of witnesses, the suit was posted for arguments.

(2.) AT that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to produce certain additional documentary evidence, which he was not able to produce earlier as he could not trace them earlier. The non production of the said documents was neither willful nor wanton. Therefore, the petitioner filed three I.A., one to reopen the case, another to recall P.W.1 and the other to receive the additional documents. The additional documents sought to be produced by him are (i) Encumbrance certificate dated 9.11.1984 (ii) Construction certificate (iii) Plan and (iv) payment receipts.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the respondents, the suit was filed in the year 1999 and the examination of witnesses on both sides over by 29.6.2004 and when the case was posted for arguments of the counsels, the plaintiff has filed the application in I.A.No.2259 of 2004 for reopening the case to adduce certain additional documents. The defendants also filed counter and finally the said I.A.No.2259 of 2004 was dismissed by the impugned order in this revision.