COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order and decree dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Learned IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.4 of 2023 and I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.4856 of 2019.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.4856 of

2019. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. When the suit was pending, the petitioners filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 and I.A.No.5 of 2023 to reopen PW1's evidence and recall PW1 for further cross examination respectively. It was stated in the applications that, originally, the suit property belonged to late Balakrishnan. The 1st petitioner is residing in the suit property for more than 30 years. The 2nd petitioner is also residing along with his mother. The respondent is not the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. She has not purchased the property from the petitioner. The respondent knows that the petitioners are having right in the suit property. It was further stated that PW1 was cross examined by the petitioners, but certain lapses were left, which was noticed later point of time only. In order to clarify certain aspects, PW1 has to be recalled for further cross examination. The respondent resisted the applications by filing a counter affidavit stating that PW1 was examined and was cross examined in detail. PW2 was examined and documents were marked. There is no need or necessity to recall PW1 once again for cross examination. The Trial Court, after hearing the counsel on either side, dismissed both the applications by common order dated 15.03.2023.

Aggrieved by the said orders, these revision petitions are filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner was facing various health issues and was not able to assist the Advocate and Court in efficacious manner. Due to ill health, she was not able to produce all the evidence within the particular time which made the Advocate not able to substantially cross examine PW1.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, since certain documents and other relevant materials and particulars were given belatedly, the reopen and recall applications were filed to establish the case before the Court. The learned trial judge had not given bonafide reasons for dismissing the Interlocutory Applications, which is against the principles and procedures of conducting trial.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would reiterate the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in the above applications and seek for dismissal of these petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, the petitioners were set exparte before the Court below on 13.12.2019 for non filing of written statement in the suit. The exparte order was thereafter set aside, issues were framed, the case was posted for trial. PW1 was examined in chief on 07.03.2022. Thereafter, till 06.09.2022, PW1 was not cross examined by the defendants. On 07.09.2022, PW1 was cross examined in full. It is further seen that, despite sufficient time granted by the court below, the petitioners did not cross examine PW2. Hence, the cross examination of PW2 was closed on 15.11.2022. The case was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 29.11.2022. The case was posted for defendants' side evidence on 06.12.2022. From 06.12.2022, the case was adjourned for several times for the evidence of the defendants, but the defendants did not adduce any evidence on their side. On 23.01.2023, the petitioners / defendants filed applications to reopen PW1's evidence and recall PW1 for further cross examination.

8. On going through the records, it is seen that, the ground on which the applications were dismissed by the Trial Court is that the PW1 was already cross examined in detail and also th