Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 370 (MAD)

Rajammal @ Rajam v. Subramanian

2006-02-14

C.NAGAPPAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decretal orders of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvarur in I.A.Nos.120 to 124 of 2003 in O.S.No.75 of 2002, dated 23.7.2003.) Common Order: All the Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the common order dated 23.7.2003 passed in various applications filed in the suit in O.S.No.75 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvarur. 2. The petitioner and the respondent in all the revisions are one and the same and hence the revisions are heard together and a Common Order is passed. The petitioner in all the revisions is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. The petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The trial commenced and all the witnesses were examined and the suit was posted for arguments and at that time, the petitioner/plaintiff filed interlocutory applications in I.A.No.120/2003 seeking for reopening the evidence, I.A.No.121/2003 seeking for recall of P.W.1, I.A.No.122/2003 seeking for permission to receive the additional document, I.A.No.123/2003 seeking for a direction to examine the Block Development Officer as a Court witness and I.A.No.124/2003 seeking for permission to receive additional list of witnesses and the Trial court dismissed all the applications on merits. Challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.120/2003, C.R.P.No.300/2004 is preferred, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.121/2003, C.R.P.No.301/2004 is preferred, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.122/2003, C.R.P.No.302/2004 is preferred, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.123/2003, C.R.P.No.303/2004 is preferred and challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.124/2003, C.R.P.No.304/2004 is preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 5. The petitioner has filed the suit in the year 2002 and examined herself as P.W.1 on 4.2.2003 and marked the documents on her side. The evidence on both sides was concluded and the suit was posted for arguments. At that point of time, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit, has chosen to file all the interlocutory applications. The document which is sought to be adduced in evidence is an order passed by the Block Development Officer on 12.1.2000. The suit itself was filed in the year 2002 and the plaintiff has not chosen to file the document as a plaint document and the plaintiff also has not marked that document during her examination as P.W.1 on 4.2.2003. Belatedly, after conclusion of evidence. The suit itself was filed in the year 2002 and the plaintiff has not chosen to file the document as a plaint document and the plaintiff also has not marked that document during her examination as P.W.1 on 4.2.2003. Belatedly, after conclusion of evidence. She has sought for permission to mark the document on her side by examining the Block Development Officer as a Court witness. The Trial Court has elaborately considered the plea of the petitioner and has rightly rejected the same. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. There are no merits in the revisions. 6. The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P.No.3328 of 2004 is also dismissed.