BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. DHANALAKSHMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed seeking to set aside the order and the decreetal order dated 10.11.2017 made in I.A. No. 554 of 2017 in O.S. No.190 of 2006 on the file of learned Additional District -1, Chengalpattu.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed the suit in O.S. No. 190 of 2006 for partition and separate possession. In the aforesaid suit, the 6th defendant filed his written statement on 22.09.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 554 of 2017, to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and permit the plaintiff for letting further evidence of PW3. According to the petitioner, the court below has erroneously dismissed the aforesaid application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.

(3.) The court below dismissed the application, observing that on careful perusal of the case diary, it is found that sufficient/ ample opportunities were given to the plaintiff to conduct the case. But, the plaintiff had failed to take appropriate steps to prove his rights and utilise the opportunities given to him. The petitioner/ plaintiff has not produced the 'Will' pertaining to the suit. Further no reasons have been shown in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, for non examination of PW3, at the time of recording evidence of plaintiff. Further, the suit is of the year 2006, the evidence of both sides have been concluded, the defendant submitted his arguments through his counsel on 24.07.2017 and the case was posted to 04.08.2017 for further arguments of the learned counsel for the 6th defendant. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant application only at the time of arguments of the defendants. Based on the above said reasons, the court below dismissed the application.