RAJU Vs. SULOJANABAI (DIED) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP.(MD) Nos.1805 to 1807 of 2013 have been filed by the seventh defendant in the suit as against the order passed in I.A. Nos. 235 to 237 of 2013 in O.S. No. 265 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: 2. 1.The first respondent in these civil revision petitions filed a suit in O.S. No. 265 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, for partition of ? share in all the plaint schedule properties and for other consequential reliefs. 2. 2. The suit was contested by all the defendants and written statement was filed by the defendants 4 to 7 in the suit in O.S. No. 265 of 2010. The defendants 4 to 7 have also filed additional written statement refuting all the allegations made in the plaint. 2. 3. The plaintiff filed a petition to call for a document and to reopen the case of plaintiff for further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in I.A. Nos. 94 and 95 of 2013. Thereafter, the seventh defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 235 of 2013, to re-open the case for adducing further evidence and I.A. No. 236 of 2013 to re-call P.W.2. The seventh defendant further filed another application in I.A. No. 237 of 2013 to direct the plaintiff to produce the original document in Document No. 2545/1962 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Nagrcoil, which is in the custody of the plaintiff. All the above three applications, filed by the seventh defendant, were dismissed by the Trial Court.

(3.) The Trial Court, after taking note of the fact that the trial was commenced on 03.02.2013, found that the disposal of the suit was delayed due to the filing of various applications. The fact that the matter was posted for arguments on 21.08.2013, was also recorded by the Trial Court. Since the production of original document was raised as an issue and no explanation has been offered for raising the same belatedly, the Trial Court was of the view that the question whether the non production of original Ex.B.1., is vital or not, can be agitated during the arguments in the main suit and that the application for production of document has no merit. Since P.W.2. was already cross-examined by the second defendant's counsel on 14.08.2013, the Lower Court observed that the question of further cross-examination does arise and that the petitions filed by the seventh defendant have no merit. Aggrieved over the common order passed by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.