R S MUNIRAJAN Vs. JAYA THEATRE KUMBAKONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above three revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.105 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. THE salient features of the controversy involved for consideration in the suit and the course of conduct adopted at every stage by the plaintiff in the suit to delay the expeditious disposed of the suit have been already adverted to by me in my earlier order dated 17.4.1996 in CRP.Nos. 905 and 906 of 1996 and hence, I consider it unnecessary to refer to them once again and I make it clear that the proceedings now initiated by the plaintiff being a continuation of the earlier proceedings culminating in my earlier order, this order can be treated as an order also made in the same manner as dealing with a continuing process with reference to the conduct of the suit, which even during the last time when the matter was brought before this Court was at the stage of arguments before the trial Court.

(2.) IT is necessary to appreciate the genuineness or otherwise of the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner- plaintiff to make reference to the fact that while disposing of CRP.No.515 of 1993 on 10. 3. 1995, a learned Judge of this Court issued a direction that the trial Court should dispose of the suit within six months from the date of such disposal of the revision petition. On more than one occasion, time stipulated by this Court for such disposal came to be extended. Inspite of the same, by the resourcefulness of the client and apparently the ingenuity of the counsel appearing for him to devise means and ways to retard the further progress of the suit at the time of arguments, applications came to be filed in the Court below to ensure that there is no disposal of the suit within the time prescribed by this Court. IT is in the said context, on the rejection of two applications, earlier CRP.Nos.905 and 906 of 1996 were brought before me and were rejected. Instead of ensuring speedy disposal of the suit, the petitioner - plaintiff motivated and obviously activated by his litigious resourcefulness, has filed the present three applications. I.A.No.166 of 1996 was filed under Order 13, Rule 2 C.P.C. praying that the document proposed to be filed may be admitted and marked in evidence. I.A.No.167 of 1996 was filed under section 151, C.P.C. to reopen the case since certain documents need be marked as per the request made in the other application referred to above. I.A.No.173 of 1996 came to be filed under section 151, C.P.C. seeking permission to the plaintiff to file a third party affidavit no evidence in the case and to reopen the suit. The applications appear to have been opposed and the learned Judge passed separate orders rejecting the same.

(3.) MR.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while inviting my attention to the decision of apex Court in Billajagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, 1994 (4) SCC 659 contended that the Court below committed a grave error in refusing to entertain the document in question and that, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside and consequently, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders in the other applications also have to be set aside, so that the matter has to be considered in the light of the document sought to be introduced after reopening the case also.