SEENI Vs. SYNAM BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revisions are directed against the Order in I.A. Nos. 308 of 2007 and 309 of 2007 allowing the Petitions filed Under Or.18, Rule 17 CPC to re-open the case and to re-call P.W.1 for the purpose of marking additional documents.

(2.) THE Respondent-Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.197 of 2000 for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE Revision petitioner-Defendant has been resisting the suit contending that he is a cultivating tenant of all the suit properties excepting item No.7 " S.No.293/4.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner-Defendant has submitted that when the Petitions did not disclose the purpose for which P.W.1 was recalled and when the description of the documents sought to be marked were not furnished in the Petition, the impugned order allowing the Petitions to re-open and re-call P.W.1 is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner would further submit that the very purpose of filing the Petition is only to exhibit the document which was not described in the affidavit nor produced before the court below and while so, the lower court erred in allowing the Petitions.