D. DANIEL Vs. R. KALINGARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of one suit and they have been filed by the sole Defendant as against the orders passed in three Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.198 of 2015, 199 of 2015, 200 of 2015 in O.S.No.229 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Thanjavur. As far as I.A.No.198 of 2015 is concerned that it is the petition filed under section 151 of C.P.C for the relief to re-open the case to let in evidence. Another I.A.No.199 of 2015 was filed for the relief to condone the delay in filing the documents mentioned in the petition. As far as the I.A.No.200 of 2015 is concerned that it is the petition filed under section 151 of C.P.C., to recall the PW1 on the plaintiff's side evidence to enable the petitioner to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence. Considering the rival submissions made before him, the learned Trial Judge by his order dated 18.08.2015 allowed those applications. Feeling aggrieved over the orders passed therein in the three interlocutory applications, the aforesaid 3 revision petitions have been filed in C.R.P.(MD)Nos. 2791 to 2793 of 2015. Hence, all the Civil Revision Petitions are clubbed together and common order is passed as follows:

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the trial court was erred in allowing all the three interlocutory applications and thereby committed gross error to permit the Respondent/Plaintiff fill up the lacuna in his evidence. So, it is his contention that all the three CRPs and the grounds raised thereon are having legal force and thereby they may be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the respondent/plaintiff herein has filed a suit for specific performance and notice was also duly served upon the petitioner/defendant and he has filed his written statement. It is brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner/defendant has taken any plea or defense by questioning the monetary source of the respondent/plaintiff to purchase the suit property. But, during the cross examination of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant has raised question that the respondent/plaintiff had sufficient money to execute the contract, hence, he was in a position to complete the terms and condition of the contract. Since, such a defense was taken by the petitioner/defendant during the trial, the respondent/plaintiff filed applications to reopen the case and to recall the witness for production of bank statement to prove that he was having financial source to purchase the property. After considering the arguments on either side, the trial court has rightly allowed the applications of the respondent/plaintiff. Against the said orders passed by the trial court in reopen and recall petitions, the instant civil revision petitions are filed which are liable to be dismissed.