ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2020 passed in I.A. No. 03 of 2020 in O.S.No. 109 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused materials available on records.

3. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the original suit.

4. The revision petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of

2013 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchencode, for declaration, declaring that they are the title holders of the suit property and for a consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. The first defendant has contested the suit by way of filing written statement and denying all the averments made in the plaint.

6. The trial in the suit began. After completion of the plaintiffs side evidence, on behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined. According to the plaintiffs, DW1, Mrs. Mani, Wife of Baskaran, is an independent witness. In other words, DW1 is not arrayed as defendants in the suit and she deposed on behalf of the defendants. It is contended that DW1 specifically deposed that she is deposing on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3. She also deposed that before examination of the defendants 1 to 3 as witnesses, she was examined on behalf of the defendants, however, no permission was obtained from the Court by filing an application under Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. While so, the third defendant sought to examine himself as DW2 after examination of DW1, an independent witnesses. Opposing the same, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that DW2 in his chief examination has attempted to fill up the lacuna in the deposition of DW1, an independent witnesses. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. 3 of 2020 before the Court below under Order 18 Rule 3A of CPC to reject the evidence of DW2/third defendant by way of chief affidavit as DW2 on 19.12.2019.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendants stating that DW1 Mrs. Mani is none other than the wife of first defendant Kuppusamy @ Baskaran and it cannot be said that she has no nexus to the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is further stated that before the examination of the first defendant, as DW2, a copy of the proof affidavit was served on the plaintiffs and in their presence, the chief examination of DW2 was recorded. At the time of examination of DW2, the plaintiffs have not raised any objection and therefore, at this stage, the prayer sought for in the application to reject the evidence of DW2 need not be granted. The plaintiffs are only attempting to prevent the first defendant from deposing in this case with respect to specific facts pleaded in the written statement, while so, it cannot be said that the first defendant, as DW2, is attempting to fill up the lacuna in the deposition of DW1.

8. The trial court, after perusing the records, dismissed the said application by order dated 27.02.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the petitioner.

9. On a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that one Tmt.Mani, the wife of the first defendant was examined as DW1. During her cross examination, she has categorically stated that, "gpujpthjpfs; 3 ngUf;fhft[k; ehd; rhl;rpak; mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; xd;W Kjy; K:d;W gpujpthjpfs; rhl;rpfshf tprhhpgg; jw;F Kd;ghf vd;id rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;f kD bra;J mDkjp vJt[k; bgwtpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;"/

10. After the evidence of the independent witness-DW1, Mr.Paramasivan, the 3rd respondent herein, has filed his proof affidavit for chief examination as DW2. The contention of the revision petitioners is that he has not been examined before the examination of the independent witnes