A. Paulin Alfy vs Rev. R. Joseph Lazarus

N. Kirubakaran, J.—The defendant is before this Court challenging the order dated 10.12.2013 passed in I.A. No. 1615 of 2013 in O.S. No. 633 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, allowing the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to re-open the suit for the examination of some more witnesses.

The respondent herein, as the plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S. No. 633 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, except by due process of law. After examination of witnesses and closing of evidence, when the matter was posted for arguments, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1615 of 2013 to re-open the suit for the purpose of examining the petitioner''s mother and to summon the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Medavakkam. The said application was allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the present revision.

Mr.T. Easwaradhas, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by examining the witnesses, as contended by the respondent, neither any purpose would be served nor would it be helpful to the Court in adjudicating the issue in question. He would submit that there is absolutely no pleading in the plaint with regard to the role played by the petitioner''s mother and the respondent, in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, has specifically stated that the petitioner alone inducted him as a tenant. Secondly, according to the learned counsel, summoning of Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Medavakkam, is unnecessary, as the suit is only for permanent injunction and the nature of service connection, whether commercial or domestic, may not be useful for adjudicating the issue. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the order under challenge.

In paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, the respondent has specifically stated that he obtained service connection to the suit property, which is a Prayer Hall, by spending his money to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- and that it is a commercial connection. When it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint itself by the respondent, it will be helpful to him if evidence is adduced in proof of the allegation made in the plaint. Further, whether the service connection effected is for commercial purpose or domestic purpose, would be known and who paid the amount would also be known if the Engineer is examined.

Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no pleading that the petitioner''s mother inducted the respondent as a tenant, interest of justice requires that an opportunity be given to the respondent to summon the petitioner''s mother. Since the matter is pending before the Trial Court, all opportunities are required to be given to the respondent. Only in that view, the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent to re-open the suit for examination of some more witnesses. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court.

Considering the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is being prolonged, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit on or before 31st August, 2014. The civil revision petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.