V.KALYANI Vs. THAYAPPASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.432 of 2018 in O.S.No.65 of 2014 dated 07.01.2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi.

(2.) I.A.No.432 of 2018 has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 2014, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2014. The petitioner in I.A.No.432 of 2018 in O.S.No.65 of 2014 has contended that already there was an order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, for joint trial and the case in O.S.No.106 of 2014 has been preferred by him. During the said examination, the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 2014, who is none other than the daughter of the second defendant, colluded together, created a document dated 09.05.2011 and proceeded the case. However, the said case is reserved for pronouncing judgment and as per the direction of the Special Court, both the cases have to be tried together and both the cases were pending in the same stage and also posted on the same day.

(3.) Since it is observed that considering the right of the both the plaintiffs in the two suits over the same property, the petitioner / plaintiff herein sought for cross examining the other plaintiff. At the same time, she being the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 2014 has to be cross-examined and hence, it is contended by the petitioner that he has to be permitted to cross-examine the P.W1 and the case has to be re-called for the said purpose. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2014 has contended that there is no collusion as stated by the petitioner and there is no cause of action for the suit filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, the first respondent / plaintiff need not be cross-examined by the petitioner herein and hence, the petitions to re-open the same and to re-call the first respondent / plaintiff are not necessary. The trial Court observed the relief sought by both the petitioner and the respondents and also the earlier direction given by the learned Special Judge, Tenkasi.