Veeraputhiran, v. Sundarasamy,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/1/2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.PD(MD) No.138 of 2015 Veeraputhiran ... Petitioner/Petitioner /1st Defendant Vs

1. Sundarasamy

2. Karuppaiah

3. Vinayagamoorthy

...Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents 1 to 3

/ Plaintiffs 1 to 3

4. The Executive Officer Vathirayiruppu Selection Grade Panchayat Vathirayiruppu.

5. The Tahsildar Srivilliputhur Virudhunagar District.

6. The District Collector Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar.

... Respondents 4 to 6 /Respondents 4 to 6/ Defendants 2 to 4 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the return of the interlocutory application I.A.(unnumbered/2015 in O.S.No.412 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur dated 22/1/2015.

For petitioner ...

Mr.Udayakumar For respondents ...

Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah for R.R.4 to 6.

- - - - - -

O R D E R

The first defendant has filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the case which has been reserved for judgment.

2. The suit is filed for a bare injunction and for mandatory injunction to demolish the building standing on the suit property. After the arguments are over and the judgment was reserved by the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, the first defendant has come up with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

application that Ex.A.2 Will is not valid and he wanted to examine the plaintiffs on the same. Besides, the revenue officials were not examined, to establish the fact that the property is a poramboke property. Therefore, he has filed the application to reopen the case. The said application is returned by the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur on the ground that already arguments were heard and judgment was reserved and hence such application cannot be entertained. No doubt, the application is returned even without numbering. However, Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a power to reopen or recall the case, in case of any ambiguity and at times, at the instance of the parties. It is also settled by the Supreme Court that such power has to be used sparingly and cannot be used for the sake of asking.

The first defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs and question on Ex.A.2 as well as to summon the revenue officials to be examined in the case. Having failed to do so, the defendant cannot fill up the lacuna by exercising the right under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the judgment was reserved. Therefore, I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition. The return of the application by the District Munsif on the ground that judgment was reserved is correct and does not warrant any interference.

3. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True copy/ sub Assistant Registrar(c.s) To The Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur +1cc to M/S.Udhaya Kumar, Advocate in SR.No. 4475. +1cc to M/S. J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Advocate in SR.No. 4052 TS/13.03.2015/2P-4C C.R.P.PD(MD) No.138 of 2015 29/1/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/