ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A. No.889 of 2018 in O.S.No.133 of 2015 dated 29.01.2019 by the District Munsif, Ponneri.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.133 of 2015 on the file the district Munsif, Ponneri. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of 1 acres and 44 cents in survey No.2/22 at Alamathi Village, Ponneri. In the meanwhile, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed I.A. No.889 of 2018 on its file seeking for permission of the Court below for receiving two additional documents namely certified copy of Sale Deeds vide Doc.No.4848/2006 dated 23.06.2006 and Doc. No.12101/2006 dated 29.12.2006. The same was dismissed by order dated 29.01.2019 in view of belated filing of the said application as the Trial had already begun and the case was posted for defendant side evidence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal order of the Trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defendant/petitioner herein is a Son-in-Law of the plaintiff/respondent herein. The plaintiff/respondent herein had settled 15 cents (6536 Sq.ft.) of land comprised in S.No.3/1, Alamathi Village, in his daughter's favour namely Radha on 03.12.2003 vide settlement Deed, Doc. No.5394/2003 on the file of the SRO, Redhills. The petitioner had obtained approval and constructed a building in the said property. Thereafter, Radha, ie. wife of the petitioner, had settled the said property in favour of her husband, ie. the petitioner herein, through a settlement deed dated 01.07.2010 vide doc. No.4803 of 2010 on the file of the SRO, Redhills, thereby the petitioner herein is absolute owner of the said property. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent herein is a widower, resides along with the defendant/petitioner herein. The respondent's another daughter Latha and Son Vijayakumar are residing in the adjoining properties as nuclear families. The plaintiff/respondent herein being a widower indulged in immoral activities and brought ladies to his personal room, in the house, where the defendant/petitioner herein is living with his wife and daughter as family. On questioning about the same, the plaintiff/respondent herein had enraged with the defendant/petitioner herein and filed a bare injunction suit before the Trial Court. In the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein has deliberately mentioned his other property in S.No.2/2, as if the defendant/petitioner herein disturbed his peaceful possession, while the defendant/petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the building property comprised in S.No.3/1, Alamathi Village but the relief sought for to a different S.No.2/2, Alamathi Village, and hence the suit is vexatious and dismissed. To substantiate the above, the relevant documents which are executed by the plaintiff/respondent herein are required to be marked before the Trial Court. It has been further submitted that after the petitioner having come to know about the suppression of sale deeds dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010, executed by the plaintiff/respondent herein before the Trial Court at the stage of deposition of evidence, he had moved three applications, vide I.A. Nos.1007 of 2018, 1008 of 2018 and 889 of 2018 before the Court below seeking for to reopen the evidence, recall and re-examine the petitioner and to introduce the suppressed two sale deed dated 23.06.2006 and 29.12.2010, respectively. While the I.A. Nos.1007 and 1008 of 2018 were allowed as the plaintiff/respondent he