L GAJALAKSHMI Vs. D SATHISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order passed by the Court below dated 17.04.2018 in I.A.Nos.4575 of 2018 & 4574 of 2018 in O.S.No.2070 of 2018 dismissing the abovesaid applications preferred the petitioners/defendants.

(2.) I.A.Nos.4574 of 2018 & 4575 of 2018 have been laid by the petitioners/defendants, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, to reopen DW1 in the abovesaid suit to enable the petitioners/defendants to mark the documents for filing in the abovesaid suit and to recall DW1 in the abovesaid suit to enable the petitioners/defendants to mark the documents for filing in the abovesaid suit.

(3.) Materials placed on record further go to show that the respondent/plaintiff has laid the suit against the petitioners/defendants for recovery of money and the suit having been laid as a summary suit, it is found that after the issuance of summons and the petitioners/defendants entering appearance, they had sought the permission of the Court to defend the case in I.A.No.10321 of 2017 and it is seen that the abovesaid petition for leave to defend had been allowed inter alia with conditional order directing the petitioners/defendants to cooperate with the Court to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of framing of issues. Further, it could also be seen that the issues had been framed as early as on 10.11.2017 and it is also noted that prior to the same, the petitioners/defendants had filed the written statement on 20.10.2017 and as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the defendants had not filed any document along with the written statement in support of their defence version as contemplated under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC and accordingly, based on the abovesaid position, it is found that the matter was proceeded further and on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, PW1 was examined and the petitioners/defendants, after taking several adjournments for the cross examination of PW1 from 211.2017 to 08.02.2018 and thereafter, concluded the cross examination and it is found that the plaintiff's side evidence was closed on 12.02.2018, thereafter, it is found that the matter had been listed for the defendants' side evidence on 14.02.2018 and thence from adjourned to 15.02.2018, 16.02.2018, 19.02.2018, 20.02.2018 and 27.02.2018 by the Court concerned and inasmuch as the defendants had prayed for time to file certain documents in respect of their case, it appears the evidence recording Court had sent back the matter to the regular Court and in the regular Court, the matter was called from 27.02.2018 and thereafter, the matter was listed for the evidence of DW1, the chief continuation on 28.02.2018, 05.02018 and adjourned to 09.02018 and as could be seen from the impugned order on 09.02018, there was no representation on the side of the defendants and as the witness was also not present in the Court, left with no other alternative, the Court below had closed the evidence of the defendants and posted the matter for arguments on 15.02018. It is further noted that on 15.02018, the plaintiff's side arguments had been heard by the Court below and the matter stood adjourned to 16.02018 for the defendants' side arguments. At that stage of the matter, it is found that the defendants had come forward with the abovesaid applications seeking to reopen the matter for the evidence of DW1 and recall him for the purpose of marking documents produced by them in support of their defence version.