R KARPAGANATHAN Vs. PRABHA APPASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dismissing the petitions filed for reopening the evidence of DW2 and recalling DW2 for cross examination on the side of the petitioners / plaintiffs.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed for redemption and recovery of possession. Originally, the suit was filed by Munusamy Naidu as power agent of three plaintiffs namely, Karpaganathan, Krishnamoorthy and Kannammal. Later, Munusamy Naidu started acting against the plaintiffs. Hence, a transpose application in I.A.No.243 of 1993 was filed to transpose Munusamy Naidu as 11th defendant in the suit which was allowed on 27.07.1993. After the demise of Kannammal, the plaintiffs 5 and 6 namely, Saroja and Kasthuri were impleaded as legal representatives of Kannammal, by order dated 23.11994 passed in I.A.No.256 of 1994. Later, the plaintiff Krishnamoorthy acted against the other plaintiffs. Hence, he was transposed as 12th defendant as per the order, dated 23.11994, passed in I.A.No.257 of 1994. Pending suit, Munusamy Naidu died. However, mistakenly, his legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 7 to 15 instead of adding them as defendants. To rectify the said mistake, the petitioners filed I.A.No.210 of 2013 to transpose the legal representatives of Munusamy Naidu as defendants which was allowed on 21.02014. Without challenging the order, dated 21.02014, passed in I.A.No.210 of 2013, the legal representatives of Munusamy Naidu filed another transposition application in I.A.No.273 of 2015 to transpose them back as plaintiffs which was allowed on 05.12015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the trial of the suit commenced on 22.02.2017 and the plaintiffs' side evidence was closed on 16.02017. Subsequently, DW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and their side evidence was closed on 12.04.2017. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed petitions to reopen and recall PW1 with an intention to drag on the suit. The evidence of PW1 was re-opened and PW1 filed proof affidavit on 24.04.2017 and he was cross-examined by the respondents 1 to 3 on the same day, thereby, the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 24.04.2017. Thereafter, on the side of the defendants 16 to 22, the 17th defendant in the suit and 5th respondent herein was examined as DW2 and Exs.B19 to B27 were marked on 08.06.2017 and on the same day, DW2 was cross examined by the petitioners and during cross examination, Ex.B28 was marked. According to the respondents 1 to 3, DW2 and the revision petitioners have colluded each other and both are having common interest of getting positive decree and judgment in the suit. The pleadings in the proof affidavits of the plaintiffs' and DW2'sare more or less same with regard to the redemption of mortgage deed dated 07.04.1921.