The court emphasized the importance of completing the evidence within a specified period and allowing the examination of witnesses to ensure a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.03.2023, In I.A.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.193 of 2013 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem and allow the Civil Revision Petition.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.03.2023 made in I.A.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.193 of 2013 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.

2. The petitioners filed in I.A.No.12 of 2023 under Order 16 Rule 1 & 151 of CPC., for issue of summons to the witness to examine as Dw3. The petitioners stated that they have proposed to examine one B.Jayashree, who is one of the executants of Ex.A-33 as she also participated in the mediation and the said application was strongly objected by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein stating that Ex.A-33, already admitted by both parties in the suit, therefore filing of the application in I.A.No.12 of 2023 by the petitioners is only to drag on the proceedings.

3. Considering the both submissions, the trial Court had dismissed the application holding that the defendants have not furnished any list of witnesses. The defendant filed the earlier application in I.A.No.8 of 2022 for examination of a Hesting witness, namely DW2/G.Prabakaran. Even in the said application, they have not mentioned about the proposed witness. After closing the evidence, they have filed the present application and trial Court clearly stated that the petitioners have filed the application only to drag on the proceedings and accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application.

4. Challenging the said order, the defendants/petitioners have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the case was posted for further evidence on the side of the petitioners. Further, the trial Court ought to have given one more oppoutnity to the petitioners to examine DW3. He further submitted that the trial Court had erroneously dismissed the application in I.A.No.12 of 2023 and closed the evidence of the defendants. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of the trial Court.

6. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the DW2, a attesting witness of Ex.A-33, was already examined to prove Ex.A-33 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the question of examine one more witness/DW3 to prove Ex.A-33 is unwarranted and filing of such application is only drag on the proceedings. He further submitted that already fair chance was given to the petitioners/defendants to adduce their evidence. After closing the evidence of the DW2, the petitioners filed the application in I.A.No.12 of 2023 to examine the DW3 is only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, the trial Judge rightly appreciated all these aspectss and dismissed the application. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Considering the nature of the case, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2013 for recovery of possession and the defendants filed the suit in O.S.Nos.15 of 2007, 17 of 2007 and 19 of 2007 which are pending for more than 16 years. Further, if the opportunity is not given to the petitioners to issue summon to examine Dw3, in order to prove the mediation between parties, the defence will be defeated. The defendants are directed to complete their evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and with regard to examination of DW3, the defendants are directed to send summons either by Court or hand-summon

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem is hereby set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.