K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S BALASHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.8/1998, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. He had already been examined as RW.1 in IA.No.295/2003 and his evidence was closed. But, however, he filed an application to recall him as RW.1 for further examination and the said petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner.

(2.) None represents the respondent. In fact, the matter came up for hearing on 12.2.2004 and on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was also called absent and set exparte and it was ordered to be posted today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) The suit has been filed by one Sami Subramaniam Chetty and subsequent to the filing of the suit, he died on 11.1.1999 and a petition has been filed by S.Balashanmugam, S/o.Late Sami Subramaniam Chetty, to bring him on record as a legal representative of Late. Sami Subramaniam Chetty and the said petition is pending in IA.No.1516/1999. It is stated by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner that S.Balashanmugam is not the son of the plaintiff, Late. Sami Subramaniam Chetty and it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit. In the said circumstances only, the revision petitioner was examined as RW.1 and after his evidence was over, he filed an application to recall himself for further examination and the same was disallowed by the trial court.