R SAROJA Vs. P RAJARAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decreetal order, passed in I.A. Nos. 1451 and 1452 of 2015 respectively in O.S. No. 335 of 2008, dated 04.01.2006, on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputur. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are defendants.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 335 of 2008 for declaration and recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The respondents filed a written statement on 17.09.2008. After framing issues, the trial was commenced. The revision petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and closed her evidence. After examination of defendants, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1451 of 2015 for permitting the petitioner to let in additional evidence and also examining her further and I.A. No. 1452 of 2015, recalling the petitioner for further examination. The sixth respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not given any reason for not filing these documents, when she was examined as P.W. 1 and she has not given the name of the witness, particulars of documents to be marked and therefore, prayed for dismissal of both the Interlocutory Applications. The learned Judge after considering the materials available on record dismissed both the applications. Against the said dismissal, the present revisions are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to flood in Chennai, the petitioner could not get Power of Attorney which is sought to be proved by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is available only at Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore, Chennai. The learned Judge erred in dismissing the applications on the ground that, this Court directed the learned Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputur, to dispose the suit at the earliest. The petitioner's side evidence was closed only temporarily and did not properly appreciate the necessity of reopening and recalling of P.W. 1 and marked the documents. Only during the evidence of respondents/defendants the petitioner came to know that the respondents are marking duplicate copy. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:-