ARYA VYASYS SAMAJAM Vs. R MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM-ADVERTING upon the order dated 19. 6. 2008 passed in I. A. No. 392 of 2008 in O. S. No. 251 qf 2005 by the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

(2.) THE epitome and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the revision petition, would run thus: the respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit o. S. No. 251 of 2005 on the file of the District munsif, Krishnagiri, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly put forth his argument to the effect that absolutely there is no reason found set out or exemplified in the affidavit for getting the respondent/plaintiff examined as one of the witnesses on his side and that too, at the belated stage of the case; purely for the purpose of filling up the lacuna, such an application was filed and the trial Court simply allowed it.