NOORJAHAN Vs. K. SENTHAMARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the revision petitioner is that she is the defendant in the suit. The suit 'B' Schedule property is the absolute property of the revision petitioner and 'A' schedule property abutting the eastern boundary of 'B' Schedule property belonged to the respondent/ plaintiff. The respondent herein despite having no right or interest over the 'B' Schedule has filed the above suit in O.S. No. 35 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, Kanchepuram District, as if his ingress and egress in 'A' schedule property stand affected and thereby prayed for removal of superstructure put up by this revision petitioner. The revision petitioner hence filed her written statement and praying for dismissal of the above suit. The said suit has been posted for the cross examination of the Defendant Witness DW1, the husband of the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) At the time of filing written statement, some vital documents in favour of the revision petitioner was not filed inadvertently besides oversight of the revision petitioner. Wherefore the revision petitioner has filed a petition in I.A. No. 1018 of 2010 under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) R/W Sec. 151 of CPC, to condone the delay caused in filing such documents and receive the documents, whereby enabling her to mark those documents through her husband, D.W.1. Misfortunately the Learned Trial judge erroneously dismissed the above application by holding that the documents sought to be received by the revision petitioner was already been received and marked in the same Court and all the issues pertaining to the documents was decided in an earlier suit in O.S. No. 726 of 1994 viz. the suit filed by this revision petitioner against the respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same 'B' schedule property. The said suit in O.S. No. 726 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent herein came to be dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner preferred appeal before the Subordinate Court, along with delay condonation petition to condone the delay caused therein in filing the said appeal. However, the delay was not condoned and the application for condoning delay was not allowed by the Appellate Court. Whereupon the petition under Order 8, Rule 1 (A) R/W Sec. 151 of CPC, to condone the delay caused in filing such documents in I.A. No. 1018 of 2010 was disallowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 22.08.2011, challenging the same the petitioner herein has come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) I heard Mr. P. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.