ATHAYEE AND ORS. Vs. A. RAMASAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28.03.2013 in I.A. No. 206 of 2013 in O.S. No. 198 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in and by which, the application filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 3 -A CPC seeking permission to examine the first plaintiff as P.W.3, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the suit was filed in 2006 while the first plaintiff was aged about 72 years and now, she is aged about 81 years. He further stated that the first plaintiff is the wife of one Ramasamy. He further submitted that the suit was filed by the first plaintiff, for partition, along with her daughter, the second plaintiff, against her husband's brother's children. He further contended that the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the written statement stating that the first plaintiff is not the wife of the said Ramasamy; the said Ramasamy never married the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff is not the daughter of the said Ramasamy. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendants' grandfather Rangasamy had two sons, namely the defendants' father Athiyappan and the said Ramasamy. He further contended that since the first plaintiff is suffering from Cancer and under medical treatment and also due to her old age, she could not be examined as a witness on the side of the plaintiff during the earlier occasion and now she has recovered partly from the ailment and ready to depose before the Court. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that considering the age of the first plaintiff, she may be permitted to be examined as one of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/defendants 1 to 4 contended that the averments of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, are not true and the lower Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly dismissed the application and he prayed that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed.