KRISHNAVENI Vs. GOPAL PANDITHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 116 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam are the revision petitioners. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration and delivery of possession of the suit property. The defendants filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. After examination of D. W. 1 on the side of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed two applications, one to recall D. W. 1 and another to reopen the evidence on the side of defendants. In the affidavits filed in support of the above petitions, it is stated that the suit is in part-heard stage and the evidence on the side of defendants was closed and DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and the suit was posted for plaintiffs side evidence. It is further stated that the counsel on record omitted to put some vital questions to DW. 1; hence, it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence on the side of the defendants. The said applications were resisted by the defendants by filing counter affidavit wherein it is stated that in view of the stand taken by the defendants, their witnesses were examined first and after closing their side, plaintiff also examined PWs. 1 to 5 on his side and at this stage, the plaintiff has filed the present applications, in order to set right the loopholes, which cannot be allowed.

(2.) THE learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, finding that defendants had closed their side and the present petitions were filed even after the evidence on the side of plaintiff was over, considering the averment that some vital aspects have not been clarified to DW. 1, allowed both the applications, in the interest of justice by awarding costs of Rs. 100/ -. Questioning the same, the present revisions have been filed.

(3.) HEARD Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the respondent.