Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1467 (MAD)

V. R. Chandrasekaran v. P. M. Vasudeva Reddiar

2010-04-01

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order, dated 24.10.2009, made in I.A.Nos.220 of 2009 and 221 of 2009, in O.S.No.319 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore. 2. The suit had been filed by the petitioner, for specific performance, praying for a decree to direct the defendants to execute and register the Sale Deed, in respect of the scheduled mentioned property, as per the agreement of sale, dated 28.09.1998, within a specified time. During the trial in the said suit, the defendants 2 to 7, who are the respondents 1 to 6 in the present Civil Revision Petition, had filed two interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.220 and 221 of 2009, praying to recall the Defendent witness D.W.2 and to mark certain documents, as stated therein. The trial Court,by its order, dated 24.10.2009, had allowed the applications. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that the respondents had filed the interlocutory applications, belatedly, only with the malafide intention of dragging on the proceedings in the suit, unnecessarily. He had submitted that the trial in the suit had started and on 12.09.2008, the evidence had been closed. Thereafter, the respondents had filed the Interlocutory Applications, on 23.07.2009, without showing sufficient cause for the filing of the said application. However, the trial Court had, erroneously allowed the applications, even though they were belated in nature. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.220 of 2009 and 221 of 2009, have been filed to recall D.W.2 and to mark certain documents which are vital to the case of the defendants. The necessity to mark the documents in question arose due to certain information elicited during the cross examination of D.W.2. The trial Court had allowed the interlocutory application on finding the request of the respondents to be proper and as it had been found that the marking of the said documents would be appropriate for adjudicating the issues arising for its consideration. 6. The trial Court had allowed the interlocutory application on finding the request of the respondents to be proper and as it had been found that the marking of the said documents would be appropriate for adjudicating the issues arising for its consideration. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,Vellore, in I.A.Nos.220 of 2009 and 221 of 2009. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, had found it appropriate to allow the applications filed by the respondents, as it had been found that the request of the respondents to recall D.W.2 and to mark certain documents was reasonable and as it could help the Court to decide the issues arising for its consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the trial Court, on 24.10.2009, in I.A.Nos. 220 of 2009 and 221 of 2009, is erroneous and illegal. 7. In such circumstances, these Civil Revision Petitions are found to be devoid of merits. Hence, they stand dismissed. No costs. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, is directed to hear and dispose of the suit, in O.S.No.319 of 2001, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.