CHIDAMBARAM Vs. RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been filed by the third plaintiff in O.S.No.576 of 1988. THE petitioner along with eight others have filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the suit was taken up for trial, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.136 of 1995 seeking permission to examine himself as P.W.2. THE lower court has dismissed the said application by order dated 15.2.1995. As against the same, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the seventh plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and since the plaintiffs 5 to 9 have purchased the property and they are possession of the same, the court below has held that those who are in possession of the properties must be examined first in accordance with order 18, Rule 3A, C.P.C. since the same is mandatory. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment reported in Samidurai and others v. Kanakayal, 1996 (II) CTC 429 : 1996 (II) M.L.J. 495 wherein I held that the said provision is directory and not mandatory and as such the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.