PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Vs. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 15. 6. 2009 passed in I. A. No. 560 of 2009 in O. S. No. 275 of 2004 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Madurantakam.

(2.) I. A. NO. 560 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the Vice president of the Parents Teachers Association. The relief sought in the suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from collecting donations from the parents of students in the name of school improvement committee and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to deposit the amount so far collected in the Parents Teachers Association Account.

(3.) THE written statement has been filed. Witnesses were examined and arguments was also over. At that point of time I. A. No. 560 of 2009 to reopen the case and another I. A. No. 561 of 2009 to recall D. Ws. 1 and 2 have been filed. The defendant resisted such applications and the trial court dismissed the applications for the following reasons:- (i) The trial of the suit has already commenced on 10. 12. 2007 and the arguments were heard on 31. 3. 2009, 3. 4. 2009, 6. 4. 2009 and 17. 4. 2009. The trial court referring to the case diary stated that sufficient opportunity to examine his witness and cross-examine the other side witnesses was granted to the plaintiff. Several interlocutory applications were filed. Some of the applications have been disposed off. (ii) The trial court also stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the I. A. No. 560 of 2009 no reason has been given as to why further cross-examine the D. Ws. 1 and 2 is required, what is the nature of documents that is required to be marked. (iii)The arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant were heard and the case was posted for judgment. At this juncture, the present petition has been filed. (iv) The court found that there was inordinate delay in adducing evidence by both sides. The court also came to conclusion that the petition filed to reopen the case was not bona fide and it is only to drag on the proceedings. (v) The court also observed that for arguments, the case was posted on four occasions, viz. , 31. 3. 2009, 3. 4. 2009, 6. 4. 2009 and 17. 4. 2009, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved.