J JAYALAKSHMI Vs. KATHIJA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present revision petitions as against the order dated 16. 9. 2008 passed in I. A. Nos. 15136 and 15137 of 2008 in O. S. No. 4097 of 2002 by 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the applications praying to reopen the case and to recall P. W. 1 witness.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in the said Interlocutory applications, has inter alia opined that the said applications have not been filed with bonafide intention and that the reasons assigned for reopening the case and for recalling P. W. 1 for the purpose of examination in paragraph 3 of the affidavit cannot be accepted and resultantly has dismissed the applications.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that the trial Court should have given an opportunity to the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs to reopen and recall the evidence of P. W1 and even on the basis of the principle of equity both the applications should have been ordered by the trial Court and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no metro water connection in front of the revision petitioners' property connecting to Devaraja Mudali Street but it existed in the 'b' schedule property Muniappa Chetty Lane and the same is admitted by the respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement and further the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the drainage connection in Devaraja Mudali Street, takes a sharp "l' turn at the western junction connecting Chinnappa Street and passes through Chinnappa Street, whereas the plaintiff's property is at the eastern end of Devaraja Mudali Street, connecting Triplicane High Road and by allowing both the applications, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents and therefore prays for allowing these civil revision petitions to prevent aberration of justice.