M PARAMESWARI Vs. M MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.08.2017, made in I.A.No.1113 of 2016 in O.S.No.363 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur.

(2.) The second defendant as power agent of the first defendant was set ex-parte as he did not appear. 15 issues have been framed, such as the genuineness of the agreement, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief, etc. Trial commenced on 011.2016 and the plaintiff remained absent and on his petition the case has been adjourned to 07.11.2016 and the sale agreement was marked with objection on the side of the defendants and when the case was posted for cross examination, the defendants sought for permission of the Court to cross examine all the witnesses on the same date and the Court had directed him to file an application for the same, which is undisputed and the present I.A. has been filed seeking permission of the Court to cross examining all the witness on the same date, which was allowed, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce all the witnesses on the same day. He would further submit that the Trial has been commenced and P.W.1 has been examined in chief and at this stage, allowing the Interlocutory Application filed by the first defendant by the Trial Court would cause serious prejudice to the case of the plaintiff. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgments in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham and Others, (1965) AIR SC 1008 and in the case of Gayathri Vs. M.Girish, (2017) 4 CTC 321.