MARUTHATHAL AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.648 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District and in the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein sought for declaration, permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, revision petitioners / defendants took out three applications in I.A.Nos.578 to 580 of 2017 in O.S.No. 648 of 2011 for reopening, recalling D.W.1 for examination and reception of additional documents respectively. Those applications were dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the applications were mainly filed to fill up the lacuna and challenging the same, the petitioners / defendants are before this Court.

(2.) It is the main case of the revision petitioners that as per the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, power is vested with the Court to recall any witness either on its own motion or on the application filed by the parties to the suit. But, the Trial Court, instead of exercising its discretionary power, has simply dismissed the application. It is the further case of the revision petitioners that the plaintiff disputed the measurement against the recitals of the document registered during the relevant point of time. Further, the relevant document dated 22.11.2004 has been traced out recently, which could not be produced at the time.

(3.) The revision petitioners state that the examination of witnesses has been completed and the case is posted for argument on the side of the defendants. If the vital document has not been marked and D.W.1 has not been examined in connection with the said document, much prejudice would caused to the defendants and for that purpose, reopening of the case is inevitable. It is further stated that it is mandate on the part of the Trial Court to ensure the extension of balance of convenience on both sides and the refusal of the Trial Court in reopening, recalling of D.W.1 and reception of documents will definitely be prejudicial to the defendants and therefore, the said order needs the intervention of this Court for rendering substantial justice to the defendants.