These civil revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 28.01.2008 made in I.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tirupur.
Animadverting upon the order dated 28.01.2008 made in I.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2008 in O.S.No.117 of 2007 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tirupur, these civil revision petitions are focussed.
2. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the parties, no one represented.
3. A resume and epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus:
The respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the suit in O.S.No.117 of 2007 for partition making the following prayer:
- directing the suit properties be divided into 4 equal shares and allot three such shares together to the plaintiff and put them in separate possession thereof.
The defendants/respondents entered appearance and filed their written statement; the trial commenced; during trial, on the plaintiffs' side evidence was adduced and the matter was posted for defendants' side. Whereupon I.A.No.52 of 2007 for re-opening the plaintiff's side and I.A.No.53 of 2007 for recalling PW1 for further cross examination were filed by the defendants. After hearing both the sides, the lower dismissed both the applications. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with such order, these revisions have been focussed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The defendants are entitled to ample opportunity of cross examining the plaintiff's witness; the question relating to sub division of the suit properties was failed to be put to PW1; the lower Court simply rejected the prayer of the defendants on the ground that such question was put to PW3.
4. A bare perusal of the orders of the lower Court including the typed set of papers would demonstrate and evince that the defendants wanted to put certain questions regarding sub division of S.F.No.254/2, Pongupalayam Village, Tirrupur, which happens to be the suit property. The schedule of the property appended to the plaint would refer to S.F.No.254/2 as well as S.F.No.254/2A and it connotes as though Survey No.254/2 was sub-divided.
5. Indubitably and indisputably, incontrovertibly and unassailably, PW1 was not cross-examined on that aspect. However, it appears from the order of the lower Court that PW3 was cross-examined touching upon the same. I am of the considered opinion that due opportunity should be given to the defendant to cross-examine PW1 also impugning such sub divisions. In the counter filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, it was contended as though such question should be put to the Revenue Officer. Be that as it may PW1 is the party concerned and the prayer to cross-examine him by the defendants relating to such sub division cannot be termed or labelled as unnecessary and on that ground it cannot be poo-poohed and belittled, slighted and discarded. However, there are laches on the part of the defendants in putting such question earlier to P.W.1 for which the plaintiffs could be compensated by awarding cost.
G.RAJASURIA,J vj2
6. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and the orders of the lower court are set aside and the I.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2007 shall stand allowed on payment of a total cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) by the revision petitioners to the respondents within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as otherwise this order shall not enure to the benefits of the revision petitioner.
7. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2 18.02.2009 Index :Yes Internet :Yes To The District Munsif, Tirupur. C.R.P.(PD).Nos.803 and 804 of 2008