V. AMALORPAVARANI Vs. A. GNANASEKAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai and in the suit, the plaintiff sought for declaration, permanent injunction, etc. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No,4 of 2018 for scrapping the deposition of DW2 along with Ex.B6 in the suit and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the 6th respondent was not a summoned witness and Order 16, Rule 21 is applicable only to the summon witness alone. Challenging the said order, the plaintiff/petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that the suit property was purchased by him on 30.11.1998 and since then, she is in enjoyment and possession of the property. Subsequently, she came to know that on the strength of an alleged settlement deed dated 15.12.1963 executed by one K.A.S.Arumugam in favour of his children, a large extent of properties was sold to the 7th defendant. According to the petitioner, the alleged settlement deed dated 15.12.1963 is not a valid one, as the same does not contain a valid settlement.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that on 11.12.2017, the 7th respondent produced a proof affidavit of 6th defendant, which was allowed as DW2 and the document has been marked as B6. Subsequently, it was found that DW2 is the 6th defendant, who remained exparte and despite suppression of the said fact, the proof affidavit was received. Though the petitioner sought time to file counter, without giving an opportunity, the proof affidavit was received, which is illegal and has no sanction of law.