O R D E R

Both civil revision petitions are filed seeking to set aside the orders, dated 29/03/2023 made in IA Nos.11 and 12 of 2023 in O.S No.27 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukottai.

2.The facts in brief:-

A suit in O.S No.27 of 2014 was filed by the respondent herein namely Mohammed Mydeen seeking a relief of specific performance on the basis of the sale agreement, dated 18/03/2011 entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The second defendant entered into an agreement with the first defendant. The defendants appeared and also filed written statement.

After framing the issues, the trial commenced.

3.After completing the examination of the witnesses, the case was posted for argument on the side of the petitioner herein. At that time, two applications came to be filed by the petitioner. One for re-opening the case and another for recall PW1 for making further cross examination.

4.Both the applications came to be dismissed by the trial after elaborate discussion. Against which these revisions are preferred by the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The reason assigned by the petitioner for the purpose of recall PW1 for further examination is mentioned that some of the vital questions were omitted to put. In that petition they have elaborated the points to be elicited from PW1 by way of cross examination. 7.Per contra, it is the contention on the part of the respondent that the suit was filed in the year 2004, written statement filed on 05/12/2014. Trial commenced on 14/11/2018. Even after the completion of the examination of PW1 in Chief and Cross, he took one year. Cross examination was done on various dates such as

14/12/2018; Further cross examination was done after further chief examination made by the respondent on 07/032019. Again he was recalled on the side of the petitioner and the further cross examination was made by the petitioner on 01/10/2019. So the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that when sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner herein to cross examine PW1 in an elaborate manner in more than one occasions, at the fag end of the trial, these petitions are filed to fill up the lacuna.

8.Per contra, it is contended on the part of the petitioner as elaborated in the petition, vital points were not elicited from PW1. According to him, one more opportunity may be given to recall PW1 for completing cross examination, so that he may not feel prejudiced.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon the judgment of this court in the case of S.Ramasamy Vs. Perumal and others (2014(3)CTC 518) stating that such sort of attitude should not be encouraged and that too to fill up the lacuna. I am not going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacuna or not. The fact remains that as mentioned several opportunities were available to him to cross examine PW1 on this aspect and these things were already available to the petitioner at the time of cross examining PW1 on several occasions. But the reason for failure to elicit these points is not mentioned in the petitioner. When the suit is filed in 2004, at the fag end of the trial process, it may not appropriate on the part of this court to allow the petitioner again to cross examine PW1. The attitude on the part of the defendant in dragging on the matter endlessly cannot be appreciated. It must be put an end at one stage. Having failed to utilise the opportunity on more then one occasions, these petitions have been filed by the petitioner belatedly, rejected rightly by the trial court. I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial court.

10.Further reading of the orders passed by the trial also indicate that the points which are mentioned in the petition were already put to PW1.

11.Para (5-xi) reads as under:-

“(5-xi)And on 5.1.2023, without advancing arguments on the side of the petitioners/defendants, they have come