B K RAJESWARI Vs. G VITTAL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/respondent/tenant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 31.8.2009 passed in M.P.No,322 of 2009 in R.C.A.No,70 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Appellate Authority should have admitted the M.P.No,322 of 2009 filed by the petitioner praying permission of the authority to adduce evidence and the learned Appellate Authority has not appreciated of the fact that the opportunity has to be provided to the revision petitioner to adduce and prove the case by providing sufficient time to file necessary documents in M.P.No,322 of 2009, when the main R.C.A.No,70 of 2008 is taken up for hearing and therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has not considered the above aspects in a pragmatic manner which has resulted in substantial and material prejudice to the revision petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.

(3.) IN the docket order in M.P.No,322 of 2009 as seen from the typed set of papers the relevant notings of the learned Appellate Authority are seen on respective dates and the same are extracted below: "Notice by 31.07.2009 Sd/- 28.07.2009 31.07.2009 Notice by 05.08.2009 05.08.2009 Notice A.O.S. filed counter by 11.08.2009 Sd/- 11.08.2009 Counter by 17.08.2009 Sd/- 17.08.2009 Counter filed. Enquiry by 20.08.2009 Sd/- 20.08.2009 Enquiry. Heard both side call on with RCA on 25.08.2009 adjourned to 25.08.2009 Sd/- 25.08.2009 Call along with RCA on 31.08.2009 Sd/- 25.08.2009 31.08.2009 Call with RCA on 04.09.2009"