BABY RAJAGOPAL @ BABY NAGALAKSHMI Vs. SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.07.2017 passed in I.A.Nos.227, 228 and 229 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 9 are defendants 6 to 9, 1, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement and the plaintiff also filed reply statement. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined. After closure of the defendants' side evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the defendants 1 to 5 filed interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.227, 228 and 229 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2013 to re-open, recall DW1 and to mark 11 additional documents.

(3.) The revision petitioner/2nd defendant who was examined as DW1, averred that when she was cross examined, she came to know that she did not let in any documentary evidence for the questions posed to her during her cross-examination which was not wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 5 sought to re-open and recall DW1 and to mark additional documents.