Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 220 (MAD)

Veera Velar v. Veeranan Ambalam

2013-01-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 12.10.2012 passed in I.A.No.1271 of 2012 in O.S.No.592 of 2007, by the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.592 of 2007 filed for injunction, wherein the defendant filed the counter claim seeking declaration and injunction with respect with respect to the suit agricultural land. The trial went on and both sides adduced evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1271 of 2012 seeking the following relief: "It is therefore just and necessary that this Honourable Court may be pleased to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff to let further evidence on the side of the plaintiff." The counter affidavit was filed by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed that application. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pyramid his argument to the effect that no doubt, in the affidavit as well as in the petition, the name of the witness and the purpose for which the witness was to be examined, were not found set out and because of that alone, the lower Court dismissed that application. If the name of the witness and the purpose for which the witness was to be examined were disclosed, then there would have been every likelihood of the opponent tampering the witness and prevent him from appearing before the Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that absolutely there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner and without even disclosing the details, he is having no right to get the matter reopened and the lower Court correctly dismissed that application, warranting no interference in this Civil Revision Petition. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? The Point: 8. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? The Point: 8. At the outset itself, I would like to observe that no carte blanche is given to any litigant to file a petition before the Court without even disclosing the name of the witness and the purpose for which the witness has to be examined and seek reopening of the matter and that too, during the trial stage. The lower Court correctly dismissed the application which warrants no interference in this Civil Revision Petition. The point is answered accordingly. 9. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.