Two Civil Revision Petitions challenging the common order dated 19.11.2008 in I.A.No.14211 of 2008 and 14241 of 2008 in O.S.No.7896 of 2006.
2.The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's/petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A written statement is filed, in which the respondents/defendants contended that the petitioner/plaintiff claimed her right to the property through her father. Earlier present respondents/defendants have filed a suit in O.S.No. 5413 of 1989 for declaration and injunction, which suit came to be decreed in their favour. The appeal filed by the father of the present petitioner/plaintiff was also dismissed. In the present suit, two Interlocutory Applications have been filed for the following the relief. I.A.No.14211 is filed under Order 16 Rule 7A and 14 read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure seeking to issue summons to Taluk Surveyor, Mambalam Guindy Taluk Office, directing him to produce the Field Map and relevant documents in respect of T.S.Nos.92, 92/1, 93, 94/1 & 94/2 and to mark the same as Exhibits in the present suit. The other Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 14241 of 2008 has been filed to reopen the plaintiffs' evidence. It is pertinent to point out that after the commencement of the trial, evidence of the parties were let in, witnesses were examined and the matters were listed for final arguments. At this point of time, two Interlocutory Applications stated above have been filed.
3. The respondents/defendants resisted such applications stating that the intention of the petitioner/plaintiff is to delay the suit proceedings without any bona fide reasons. It is an abuse of process of court.
4. One another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants is that in the earlier suit filed by the respondents/defendants against the father of the present petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.5413 of 1989, the application was filed for surveying the property and was rejected by the Trial Court and another Interlocutory Application filed to summon the surveyor, was also dismissed. Hence, the intention of the party is to delay the trial.
5. The court below did not accept the request of the petitioner. Trial Court referring to the orders passed in the earlier suit viz., O.S.No.5413 of 1989 came to the conclusion that the present application to reopen the case and to summon the Taluk Surveyor, Mambalam-Guindy is only to protract the proceedings and not a bona fide plea. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed. Hence the present revision petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reason for filing these applications arose because of the evidence of D.W.1, where some doubts were raised with regard to the survey number and therefore he wanted to reopen the case and clarify the position. The petitioner/plaintiff also relies upon the Revenue Records in the plaint. Merely because, the evidence of D.W.1 created the doubts in the minds of the petitioner/plaintiff that cannot be a reason to reopen the case to adduce further evidence. The plaintiff has to prove her case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. The lower court has rightly dismissed the applications filed for reopening the case and for summoning the Taluk Surveyor on the ground that such issue was raised in the earlier proceedings and were dismissed.
7. This Court does not find any just or good cause to interfere with the order of the court below to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Finding no merits, both Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suits as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.
vd/mra To The Registrar City Civil Court Chennai