K M RAMANNA Vs. THIMMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/8th defendant/petitioner has filed this revision as against the order passed in I.A.No.275 of 2008 in O.S.No.78 of 2003 dated 18.06.2008 by the District Munsif, Hosur in allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying the trial Court to reopen the case so as to enable the respondents/plaintiffs to produce further three witnesses on their side.

(2.) THE trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.275 of 2008 has inter alia observed that based on the nature of the case, an opportunity can be given to the respondents/ petitioners to examine other witnesses and there is nothing wrong in providing such opportunity and since the matter has been posted for arguments and at that stage, the present IA has been filed. Hence, a cost of Rs.250/- has been awarded to be paid by the respondents/plaintiffs to the defendants on or before 23.6.2003 and resultantly, allowed the application.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs/petitioners submits that I.A.No.275 of 2008 praying for permission of the trial Court to reopen the case has been filed under Section 151 of Civil procedure Code and that the said power is an inherent power of the Court and therefore, the I.A.No.275 of 2008 filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is perfectly maintainable in law. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs cites before this Court the decision in Smt. Meenakshamma V. Sri Munivenkatappa (AIR 2003 Karnataka 450) wherein it is observed that 'Order allowing plaintiff to adduce additional evidence after stage of evidence-Is one passed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code in exercise of inherent powers and therefore, the revision against such order is not maintainable.' Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also cites the decision of this Court in S. Rathinaswamy and Others V. Smt. S. Bhanumathi and others (AIR 2006 Madras 221) wherein it is held that 'permission to recall witness and mark documents should be granted'.