VEERASEGARAN Vs. M/S. SIVASAKTHIVEL CHITS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, in OS.No.1664 of 2007, the revision petitioner has filed applications in IA.No.937 of 2017 to reopen the defendant side evidence and IA.No.938 of 2017 to recall DW1 and IA.No.939 of 2017 to condone the delay in filing the list mentioned documents and receive it on file. According to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner filed application for production of income tax return of the respondent and the same was allowed by this Cour against which the plaintiff the plaintiff filed review and the same was dismissed by the court below. The plaintiff did not produce the income tax return. The revision petitioner traced out the hand written letter by the plaintiff along with the seal and signature of company and the petitioner mentioned about the said document in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 11. The revision petitioner could not filed the petition cited document at an earlier stage due to non availability and misplacement of the said document. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed the present applications. Therefore, delay in filing the document is beyond the control of the revision petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the court below without taking into consideration of the contention of the revision petitioner dismissed the said application by stating that the aforesaid application has been filed at the fag end of the suit. Therefore, the court below has misinterpreted provision under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Revision Petition for reopen and recall of the witnesses. The said vital document is required and the said application can be allowed at any stage. Therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the materials available on record.