G SUMATHI Vs. P JEYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.362 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Court Nillakottai is the petitioner before this Court and the 2nd respondent / plaintiff therein had filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, the revision petitioner / 2nd defendant took out an application in I.A.No.109 of 2018 in O.S.No.362 of 2013 for recalling D.W.5 for the purpose of further examination with regard to some of the documents adduced by the revision petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the application was mainly filed to fill up the lacuna and challenging the same, the petitioner / 2nd defendant is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that one Vasuki, W./o.Seenivasan had been examined on the side of the 2nd defendant as D.W.5 and since the 2nd defendant had omitted to examine D.W.5 regarding certain vital documents, she filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to recall D.W.5 for examination, which was negatived by the Trial Court.

(3.) It is the further case of the revision petitioner that recalling of D.W.5 will not cause prejudice to the plaintiff at any cost and in fact, such examination of D.W.5 will unveil certain issues involved in the suit so as to throw more clarity on the issue. At the time of examination of D.W.5 in the normal course, few questions were left out due to oversight and inadvertence, which can be ratified only on recalling of D.W.5 by reopening the evidence once again.