J SAMUEL Vs. S MATHISA PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli. in I. A. No. 195 of 1997 in o. S. No. 64 of 1988 dated 30. 9. 97.

(2.) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the trial in the suit for letting in additional evidence. THE petitioner is said to have purchased the property from the 1st respondent on 30. 10. 86 under the sale deed Ex. A5. Now the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has no title in Survey No. 101/6 in an extent of 0. 63 cents. THE petitioner already filed I. A. No. 110 of 1997 and it was dismissed on 24. 6. 97. THE Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagiri, has given a certificate to the effect that the 1st respondent had no title in the aforesaid survey number and the petitioner sought an opportunity of proving the same by letting in additional evidence since the evidence was already closed and the case was posted for arguments.

(3.) IT is admitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 3. 11. 86 and 6. 11. 86 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in the scheduled properties are void and inoperative/and also claimed the relief of permanent injunction. IT is admitted that the trial in the suit commenced as early as 8. 1. 96 and the petitioner had already made an endorsement as'no further oral evidence. The present application was filed under section 151, C. P. C. and it was dismissed. IT has been held in a. T. K. P. L. M. Alamelu Ammal v. Rama Iyer and another, AIR 1922 Mad. 446 that the fact that the petition in a case is headed as under section 151, C. P. C. does not debar the Court from proceeding with it under any other provision, which it may find actually applicable.