DHANALAKSHMI Vs. S RATHINADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S.No.13 of 2018 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein before the II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur. The suit was filed seeking reliefs of partition and for accounts and also for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. But, during the course of the suit proceedings, it was felt that the revision petitioner herein was putting spokes in the wheel. Therefore, the plaintiffs took out an application for transposing the revision petitioner to the defendants' side. The revision petitioner joined the ranks of the defendants as 30th defendant.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed I.A.Nos.80 and 81 of 2018 for reopening the case and for recall of P.W.1 so as to enable her to cross- examine P.W.1. These Interlocutory Applications were dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.06.2018. The correctness of the impugned order is challenged in these two Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the caveator / plaintiff contended that the Court below already passed an order as early as on 27.11.2017 that the revision petitioner and two others are not entitled to adduce evidence on other side in view of the fact that they are not at variance to the case of the plaintiffs and that therefore, they are not having any right to let evidence, after the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. It is admitted that this order has not been challenged by the revision petitioner. That apart, the present Interlocutory Applications have been filed literally at the last moment. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs had already concluded his part of arguments. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 is about to conclude his arguments. At this stage, these applications were taken out. He also incidentally mentioned that the learned trial Judge is about to demit his office by the end of this month and that therefore, any reopening of the case would ensure that the learned trial judge, who had already heard the matter in part would not be able to pronounce judgment. If such a situation were to arise, that would amount to colossal waste of judicial time. He also took this Court through the reasons given by the trial Court, which have been set out particularly in Paragraph Numbers 5 and 6 of the impugned order. He wanted this Court to sustain the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition by affirming the reasoning of the Court below.