MUNIAPPAN Vs. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order of the Sub Court, Mettur in I.A.No. 292 and I.A.No. 293 of 2011 in O.S.No. 82 of 2006 in and by which the learned Judge had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to recall and reopen the cross examination of the Revision petitioner.

(2.) The facts in brief is as follows:-

(3.) The first respondent had filed a written statement in which he had contended that his father did have sufficient funds to purchase property and that the properties are the revision petitioner's self-acquired properties which has been purchased by him out of his income from his business and the capital for his business had been given by his father-in-law. He had further contended that whenever the respondent had demanded money, he had obliged his request. Since the properties are his self acquired property they are available for partition. On 06.04.2011 the revision petitioner came up with the impugned petition to recall and reopen his evidence for his cross examination, stating that when the matter was posted for his cross examination on 17.03.2011, he was able to appear in Court on account of the accident and since he has substantial defence, the Court should recall him and permit him to submit himself for cross examination. The said petition was resisted by the respondent and ultimately the Learned Sub Judge, Mettur vide dated 18.07.2011 dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the petitioner is in habit of allowing his evidence to be closed and therefore it was clear that the petitioner was reluctant to submit himself for cross examination.