G RAVICHANDRAN Vs. K JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 28.01.2008 made in I.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tirupur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.

(2.) DESPITE printing the name of the learned counsel for the parties, no one represented.

(3.) INDUBITABLY and indisputably, incontrovertibly and unassailably, PW1 was not cross-examined on that aspect. However, it appears from the order of the lower Court that PW3 was cross-examined touching upon the same. I am of the considered opinion that due opportunity should be given to the defendant to cross-examine PW1 also impugning such sub divisions. In the counter filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, it was contended as though such question should be put to the Revenue Officer. Be that as it may PW1 is the party concerned and the prayer to cross-examine him by the defendants relating to such sub division cannot be termed or labelled as unnecessary and on that ground it cannot be poo-poohed and belittled, slighted and discarded. However, there are laches on the part of the defendants in putting such question earlier to P.W.1 for which the plaintiffs could be compensated by awarding cost.