COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order, passed in unnumbered I.A.No. of 2017 in Petition No.147 of 2013, on the file of the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Thichirappalli, dated 10.04.2017.
The petitioner has initiated proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Trichirappalli, under Section 3 (4) of the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenant Protection Act, 25 / 55 as amended and in the said proceedings, it is found that at one stage after the petitioner's evidence has been closed, it is found that applications have been preferred by the respondent herein to reopen the case and to recall P.W.1 for further examination, as according to the respondent, certain documents, which are material to the case at hand, had been obtained by her only recently. It is found that the above said applications laid by the respondent had been stiffly resisted by the petitioner contending that no valid reason at all had been placed by the respondent to recall P.W.1 for further examination and even the documents said to have been procured subsequently had not been listed in detail and hence, the applications laid by the respondent are liable to be dismissed. It is found that the Court below has passed the impugned order allowing the applications preferred by the respondent, without giving any reason as to why, it had entertained the applications. The impugned order reads only, reopen and recall applications allowed, other than that nothing has been stated in the impugned order as to on what basis the Court below had chosen to entertain the said applications, particularly, when according to the petitioner, no valid case has been made out by the respondent to recall P.W.1 for further examination and that apart, the documents with reference to which, the recalling of P.W1 had been sought for, also not listed or detailed in the applications. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petitions have been preferred.
2. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below has not given any reason whatsoever for entertaining the applications preferred by the respondent to reopen the case and recall P.W.1. Other than straightaway allowing the applications, it is found that the Court below did not endeavour to adduce any reason for allowing the applications. When, particularly, the petitioner is stoutly opposing the applications, the Court below should have applied its mind to the merits of the case and passed a detailed order and on the other hand, without giving any reason, the act of the Court below in straightaway entertaining the applications preferred by the respondent cannot be accepted as such. It is further found that the Court below had not even numbered the applications preferred by the petitioner, in a haste manner seems to have entertained the applications without giving any reason as above referred. In such view of the matter, it is found that the impugned order of the Court below does not stand scrutiny in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same are required to the set aside.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below with a direction to the Court below to number the applications preferred by the respondent and thereafter, after affording due opportunities to both parties and hearing them, pass a detailed order on the merits of the applications and accordingly, proceed further in the matter.
4. Resultanlty the civil revision petitions are disposed of.
To:
The Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Thichirappalli.
.