MEELA ANTHAIAH Vs. MEELA VAJRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Jangaon in IA.No.560/90 in OS.No.54/80 allowing the application filed by defendants 5 & 6 in the suit for reopening of the suit in order to facilitate them to participate in the trial by examining the witnesses. That application was opposed by the second defendant in the suit by filing a Counter. The learned District Munsif allowed the application without stating any reasons on payment of costs of Rs.25/-.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the third respondent herein for partition of joint family properties. The father, two sons and daughter are made parties to the suit. Except the second defendant, the petitioner herein, the others were sailing with the plaintiff. The second defendant alone filed a written statement contending that earlier there was a partition. The suit was instituted as far back as 1980. After the evidence of both sides was over, the application was filed for reopening of the suit alleging that the stridhana properties of the mother (D.5) are sought to be partitioned and, therefore, she should be given an opportunity to lead evidence:

(3.) The order under revision deserves to be set aside on grounds more than one. Absolutely no reasons are mentioned by the learned District Munsif as to why he was allowing the application for reopening. Being an old suit - which was filed in 1980 - the learned District Munsif ought to have taken care to prevent the attempts of the parties to procrastinate the trial. It is impossible to believe that the other defendants in the suit including the father of the plaintiff were not aware of the claim of the plaintiff that the stridhana properties of the plaintiff's mother also were sought to be partitioned. Had there been any truth in that, they would have immediately filed a written statement opposing that plea. The fact that no attempt was made in this direction itself is suggestive of the falsity of the claim now put forward that the plaintiff is attempting to seek partition of the stridhana properties. Without applying his mind to any of these relevant aspects, the learned District Munsif, in a routine and mechanical manner, passed the order permitting reopening. It was held by this Court in G.V.K. Raju vs. B. jayalakshm that the defendants supporting the case of the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead their evidence after the evidence of the contesting defendants was completed.