Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2012 (MAD)

Adhimoolam v. Perumal

2013-06-14

M.DURAISWAMY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The defendants 1 to 3 have filed the above Civil Revision Petitions challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.Nos.62 and 63 of 2011 in O.S.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. 2. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.55 of 2008 for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction. When the suit was posted for trial and after completion of the examination of PW.2 and PW.3, since neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present on 04.01.2011, the evidence was closed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, thereafter, the petitioners filed applications in I.A.Nos.22 and 23 of 2011 to re-open and re-call PW.2 and PW.3. According to the learned counsel, the said applications were allowed on terms. When the matter was again posted for cross-examination of PW.2 and PW.3 on 15.02.2011 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and therefore, the evidence was once again closed by the trial court on 15.2.2011. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed the present applications in I.A.Nos.62 and 63 of 2011 to re-open and re-call PW.2 and PW.3. The said applications were dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the above Civil Revision Petitions. 3. Heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though notice was served on the respondent, none appears on behalf o the respondent. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, the petitioners have stated the reason only for their non-appearance on 04.01.2011. They have not uttered single word with regard to non-appearance on 15.02.2011. That apart, they have not disclosed the earlier applications fled by them in I.A.Nos.22 and 23 of 2011 to re-open and re-call PW.2 and PW.3. The trial court, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, has rightly dismissed the application. In the absence of any reason for non-appearance on 15.2.2011, I find no ground to interfere with the fair and final order passed by the trial court. 5. In these circumstances, the civil revision petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.