Palanisamy v. Govindasamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2019 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.R.P.(NPD)No.1681 of 2019 and C.M.P.NO.10877 of 2019 1.Palanisamy 2.Gurusamy alias Manickam 3.Duraisamy 4.Ayyammal 5.N.Ravikumar 6.N.Nithyanandhan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.Govindasamy 2.Rukumani 3.Saraswathy 4.Pavayammal 5.Muthulakshmi 6.Ammaniammal 7.Vengatathal 8.Rathinam 9.Lakshmi 10.Ammaniammal
11.Venlatachala Gounder 12.Elayammal 13.Velusamy 14.Rathinasamy 15.Padmavathy 16.Seethalakshmi 17.Easwari 18.A.Rajendran ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., 1908 praying to set aside the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No.129 of 2018 in A.S.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the Mahila Court at Erode (District level, Additional District Judge, District Court Erode). For Petitioner : Mr.V.Girishankar *****
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order and decreetal order made in I.A.No.129 of 2018 in A.S.No.23 of 2017 on the file of the Mahila Court at Erode (District level, Additional District Judge, District Court Erode).
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the dismissal of the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. The
petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for partition. According to the petitioners, who derived title through the Will executed by Nanjayammal, in their favour, could not produce the original Will before the trial Court. Therefore, they produced the certified copy of the Will. Unfortunately, the attesting witnesses were not alive to prove the will and the son of one of the attesting witnesses was examined before the Trial Court. The Trial Court did not believe his evidence and held that the Will was not proved and dismissed the suit. Against which they filed an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2017. During the pendency of the appeal, the above said interlocutory application for production of additional evidence has been filed. Even before the appellate Court, they filed the very same certified copy of the Will, which was marked as Ex.P.31. They would plead that if an opportunity is given, they could bring additional evidence to prove the same.
3. Even today, the petitioners are not specific as to what is the additional evidence and who are the additional witnesses, going to depose in support of the Will available with them. Hence, it is clear that the petitioners after filing the above application, are attempting to gather evidence. Since they do not come out with specific details of the additional evidence, they are not entitled to the relief sought by them. The lower appellate Court elaborately considered all these aspects and rejected the petition.
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
bkn
4. In the absence of any specific materials to prove the case of the petitioners, the order of the lower appellate Court need not be interfered with. Accordingly, the civil revision petition merits no consideration and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.06.2019 bkn C.R.P.(NPD)No.1681 of 2019 and C.M.P.NO.10877 of 2019