Madras High Court
R.Sivakami Sundari vs B.Kalpana on 19 December, 2014
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No.2505 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 1. R.Sivakami Sundari 2. R.Tamil Selvi ... Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs 2&3 Vs. 1. B.Kalpana 2. J.Kalai Selvi 3. M.Santhi 4. J.Sivasankar 5. J.Jeyalakshmi 6. M.Maheshwaran 7. M.Balakumaran (a) Raju 8. Minor M.Ajaykumar (minor 8th respondent represented by his mother and natural guardian, the third respondent herein) ... Respondents 1 to 8 Respondents 1 to 8/ Defendants 1 to 8 9. Muthulakshmi ... Respondent/Proposed 9th Respondent/ 1st Plaintiff Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.403 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2011, dated 11.10.2014, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai and to set aside the same. !For Petitioners : Mr.C.Sundaravadivel * * * * :ORDER
Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.403 of 2014 in O.S.No.127 of 2011, on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Madurai, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.127 of 2011 for partition. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. The first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. In her chief examination, the first plaintiff deposed evidence in consonance with the averments stated in the plaint. Thereafter she was cross-examined by the defendants. At the time of cross-examination, she gave answers in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiffs 2 & 3 filed the present application to transpose the plaintiffs as plaintiffs 1 and 2 and to transpose the first plaintiff as 9th defendant in the suit.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of of the application, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 have stated that at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1, she gave answers in favour of the defendants, therefore, she should be transposed as 9th defendant in the suit.
5. The contention of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be accepted for the reason that just because the first plaintiff has given answers in favour of the defendants in the cross-examination, that is not a ground to transpose her as a defendant in the suit. If she is transposed as 9th defendant, the purpose of cross-examination itself will be lost. We can understand, if she had deposed evidence in the chief examination in favour of the defendants. Here in the chief examination she deposed evidence in consonance with the averments stated in the plaint. When the defendants are able to extract some suitable answers from the first plaintiff in the cross-examination, the same cannot be nullified by transposing her as one of the defendants in the suit. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these aspects rightly dismissed the application. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs.
19.12.2014 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ssl To The VI Additional District Court, Madurai.
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
ssl C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No.2505 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 19.12.2014