Jeyakannan And Others vs Ramyashree And Others

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

Both these revisions have been filed to set aside the ord 18.11.019 dismissing I.A.Nos.178 and 176 of 2018 in O.S.No.333 of 2017.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.333 filed claiming damages of Rs.10,00,000/-. When the matt posted for arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No. 2018 to reopen the plaintiffs' side evidence for adducing further evidence, I.A.No.177 of 2018 and 178 of 2018 had been filed under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice for the relief of sending fo documents showing details of incoming and outgoing messages on 12.8.2014 in respect of Cell number +971555641023. The Trial Court, finding that the petitions have been filed belatedly, at the fag en the Trial viz., at the argument stage and also finding that th defendant had stated in her reply notice and written statement that she does not have any Cell number as alleged by the plaintiffs and in the cross examination of PW1 by the defendants side, the defendants have putforth the case that the first defendant is not having any cell number like +971555641023, had dismissed petition, against which the present revisions have been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that t petitioner in para 4 of the plaint, had stated that the first defen had sent a message through her phone number 971555641023 on 12.8.2004 to the plaintiffs phone No.971507805701 and whe plaintiffs had already stated about the phone number, the finding o the Trial Court and that the petitioner had not stated about the ph numbers is error apparent and thereby the revision has to be allowe and the order passed by the Trial Court has to be set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused materials available on record.

It is seen from the counter that the original suit was the file of the District Court, Theni and subsequently, it was transferred to the Fast Track Court, Periyakulam and the proof affi of the plaintiff had been filed and the plaintiff had been cross ex by the defendants' counsel in detail on 27.2.2017 itself and after the case had been posted for further evidence of the plai the sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to adduce fu evidence and thereafter the case was posted for defendants side evidence and the defendants have made endorsement as if they have no oral evidence and thereafter, the case was been posted on the following dates:-

"15.3.2017, 20.3.2017, 3.4.2017, 17.4.2017, 18.4.2017 21.4.2017, 29.4.2017, 22.5.2017, 12.6.201 15.6.2017, 17.6.2017, 3.7.2017, 12.7.2017, 26.7.2017, 9.8.2017, 23.8.2017, 5.9.2017, 11.10.201 27.10.2017, 10.11.2017 and 17.11.2017."

On 17.11.2017, the case was transferred to the Fast Track Court and renumbered as O.S.No.333 of 2017 and posted for arguments on 2.1.2018, 24.1.2018, 9.2.2018, 21.2.2018, 2.3.2018 and 9.3.2018 and only at that stage, the petitions have been filed. Further, the court has also observed that the first defendant had stated in her notice and written statement that she is not having any cell number alleged by the plaintiff and also in the cross examination of PW1, by the defendants side, they have putforth the case that the first defendant is not having the number +971555641023 and th Court had also found that the plaintiffs, at the very initial stage suit and pre-suit, came to know of the case of the first de however, have not taken any steps till the completion of recording evidence on both sides to recall for the records and thereby findin that the petitions had been filed vexatiously, dismissed the petiti reopen and recall.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and p the materials available on record, this court finds that the petiti have been filed by the plaintiffs at the fag end of trial only to d the proceedings and therefore, finds no infirmity in the order pass by the Trial Court. The civil revision petitions are, therefore, di as de void of merits.