AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—Ext. P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff, Tirur dismissing an application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff to re-open the evidence and to permit the petitioner to examine the witnesses named in the additional witness schedule is challenged in this Original Petition. Suit is one for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. After the evidence of both sides was completed, petitioner/plaintiff moved the application for re-opening the evidence. He desired to examine the predecessor of the defendant and also his daughter, as additional witnesses to substantiate his claim that a pathway running through the property of the defendant has been continuously enjoyed by him and his brothers. Learned Munsiff found no merit in the application moved for re-opening the evidence. After hearing the counsel on both sides and looking into the copy of the plaint produced with the Original Petition also, I find no justifiable reason to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to interfere with Ext. P9 order.
Petition is dismissed.