COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the common order passed in I.A.No.849 of 2018, 850 of 2018 and 851 of 2018 in O.S.No.35 of 2011 dated 20.07.2018, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

2.The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant. The petitioner herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Aruppukottai for declaration and for injunction. Pending suit, the petitioner has filed petitions in I.A.No.849 of 2018 to 851 of 2018 for reopening the case and to recall the witness and for permission to mark additional documents.

3.The brief substance of the petitions in I.A.No.849 to 851 of 2018 is as follows:

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The case was adjourned for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner came to know that there was a previous litigations between the defendant and one Vishwakarma iyenthu vaguppu majana nirvaga sabai wherein the lane near the house of the defendant which was declared as a common lane and that the defendant was having 1½ feet in the lane. The commissioner report filed in that case reveals that the lane is 3 feet width. The judgment and decree of the suit in O.S.No.106 of 1997 is necessary for deciding the matter in issue in the present suit. On 21.09.1988, the defendant and his brother executed a partition deed wherein the measurement of the defendant's house and the measurement of the eastern side portion of the house were mentioned and that document is also necessary for deciding the case. Hence, permission should be granted to recall the witness for marking these two documents and to reopen the case.

4.The brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent is as follows:

The plaintiff did not mention anything in the plaint regarding the documents mentioned in those petition. When there is no pleadings, the petitioner is not entitled to adduce any evidence.

5.After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petitions. Against which, the petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petitions before this Court. 6.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction regarding the first schedule of the property and for declaring the second schedule property, as the common pathway and to remove the encroachment in the second schedule property. Only recently the plaintiff came to know about the earlier suit between the defendant and the Vishwakarma iyenthu vaguppu majana nirvaga sabai wherein a commissioner was appointed and the suit second schedule property was mentioned as a common pathway in the commissioner report and plan and that those documents are necessary for deciding the suit property. The trial Court counsel wrongly mentioned the section number in the petition. Instead of Order 7 Rule 14, Order 13 Rule 2 was wrongly mentioned by the counsel and the trial Court dismissed the petition merely because of the mentioning of the wrong section in the petition. There was no discussion regarding the merits of the petition in the impugned order. The right of the plaintiff cannot be deprived merely because a wrong Section was mentioned in the petition.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and others reported in (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 278, wherein it is stated as follows:

“Order passed by Govt. in exercise of power under the proviso granting exemption from operation of R.14-Absence therein of specific reference to the exemption provision of S.11-

Held, that by itself cannot be a ground for quashing the order.

Administrative Law-Ultra vires-Defences to plea of ultra vires-validity under another provision-Existence of power somewhere enough-Absence of specific mention of it, held, would not vitiate the exercise of that power.”

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would re