Quashing of wrong provision is no bar for relief sought.

1. The revision petition hasbeen filed against the order of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli. in I.A.No.195 of 1997 in O.S.No.64 of 1988 dated 30.97.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the trial in the suit for letting in additional evidence. The petitioner is said to have purchased the property from the 1st respondent on 30.10.86 under the sale deed Ex.A5. Now the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has no title in Survey No. 101/6 in an extent of 0.63 cents. The petitioner already filed I.A.No.110 of 1997 and it was dismissed on 26. 97. The Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagiri, has given a certificate to the effect that the 1st respondent had no title in the aforesaid survey number and the petitioner sought an opportunity of proving the same by letting in additional evidence since the evidence was already closed and the case was posted for arguments.

3. The respondents resisted the application and contended that the 1st respondent had title to an extent of 0.63 cents in S.No.101/6. The trial in the suit was already endorsed commenced on 1. 96 and the petitioner had already twice before the trial court that he had no more oral evidence and the case was posted for arguments on 197. On that date, the petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 1997 to re-open but not pressed the same on 4. 97. Again on the same date, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1 10 of 1997 for re-opening the case and to examine a witness and to produce the document and after hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the application on 26. 97. The petitioner has not chosen to file any revision. But, later, filed another application for re-opening the case. The application filed by the petitioner was not bona fide and the case is pending for the last ten years. The application filed by the petitioner was also barred by res judicata and the only intention of the petitioner is to drag on the proceedings.

4. The court below after hearing both sides, dismissed I.A.195 of 1997 and aggrieved against this, the petitioner has come forward with the present revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that although the application was filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has got power to reopen the same at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. The petitioner was a college student when the suit was instituted in the year 1988 and only in 1997 he came to know that the 1st respondent had no title to the property conveyed by him and he obtained the certificate from the Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagiri. No doubt, there was delay in the disposal of the suit. But since a new document has been secured, it is just and necessary to re-open the case and prove the same.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the application contending that the trial commenced more than 1 1?2 years back and the only aim of the petitioner is to protract the litigation. The earlier application filed by the petitioner No. I.A.110 of 1997 was dismissed and he has not chosen to file any revision. It is further stated that the present application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law since no revision would lie as the order was not passed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application lacks in bona fide and it is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is admitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 11. 86 and 11. 86 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in the scheduled properties are void and inoperative/and also claimed the relief of permanent injunction. It is admitted that the trial in the suit commenced as early as 1. 96 and the petitioner had already made an endorsement as no further oral evidence. The present application was filed under section 151, C.P.C. and it was dismissed. It has been held in A.T.K.P.L.M. Alamelu Ammal v. Rama Iyer and another, AIR 1922 Mad. 446 th