(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in O.S.No.135 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 21.03.2015.)

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the order passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in O.S.No.135 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 21.03.2015. The third defendant is the Civil Revision Petitioner.

2. The plaintiff presented the suit in O.S.No.135 of 2019 for the following relief:-

                   “(a) To declare that the Settlement Deed bearing Document No.2675/15 dated 16.12.2015, SRO, 2-Joint Ramanadapuram by the by 2nd Defendant in favour of 5th defendant is null and void not binding on the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

                   (b) To declare that the Settlement Deed bearing Document No.975/19, Dated 13/6/2019, SRO, 2-Joint Ramanadapuram by the by 5th Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff is null and void not binding on the Plaintiff and not accepted by the Plaintiff.

                   (c) To grant the preliminary decree thereby divide the A, B and C schedule mentioned property in to 1/4th share to the plaintiff.

                   (d)Granting Permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men or agents or servants or claiming through or under them from alienating the schedule mentioned properties without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff.

                   (e) To pay the cost of this suit.”

3. Summons were served on the defendants. They have also filed a detailed written statement. On the basis of these pleadings, issues were framed and the parties have entered the witness box. It is not in dispute that the parties have completed their examination in full. The matter was posted for arguments on the side of the plaintiff.

4. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2025, calling upon the Court to re-open the side of the defendants and to cross examine D.W1. The reasons set forth in an extremely brief manner in the affidavit is that during the course of cross examination, certain questions on the documents marked by D.W1 to D.W3 could not be put to D.W1. Hence, she sought leave of the Court to reopen the side of the defendants and to cross examine D.W1.

5. The learned trial Judge numbered this application and called upon the defendants to file a counter. The usual defence that the plaintiff is attempting to drag on the matter and that it is an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the evidence was taken. It was also pleaded that the Court had given sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine D.W1 to D.W3 and therefore, the present attempt of the plaintiff is yet another device to ensure that the suit does not see the end of the day.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge at Ramanathapuram, on the basis of the affidavit and counter, came to a conclusion that an opportunity be granted to the plaintiff to cross examine D.W1. For the delay caused by the plaintiff, she was inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 1,500/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Challenging the same, this Revision. The Civil Revision Petitioner refused to receive the cost and consequently, the cost was deposited in the Court on 03.04.2025.

7. I heard Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan for the petitioner and Mr.V.M.Jegadeesha Pandian for the respondent. Both of them reiterated the contentions that they had placed before the trial Court.

8. I am not inclined to interfere with the order for two particular reasons. One, the learned Subordinate Judge, who had the pleasure of witnessing the evidence being recorded has decided to exercise her discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Exercise of discretion, unless and until is capricious or illegal, is normally not capable of being interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. De hors that aspect, I should point out that the learned Subordinate Judge has given reasoning that in case, the plaintiff is denied an opportunity for cross-examination, it might lead to further multiplicity of proceedings and also prolong the litigation. Had the parties co-operated in implementation of the order, perhaps, the suit itself would have been disposed of by now.

9. Be that as it may, as the learned Subordinate Judge has given appropriate reasons for reopening the evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the reasoning, as I do not find any error in the reasoning.

10. At this stage, Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan pointed out that the suit has been pending from the year 2019 and though the parties have completed their evidence, for one reason or the other, the plaintiff is not cooperating for disposal. This statement is stoutly denied by Mr.V.M.Jagadeesha Pandian appearing for the plaintiff. Hence, while confirming the order reopening the evidence, this Revision is disposed of with the following directions:

                   i) D.W1, as stated by Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan, will appear before the Court on 23.03.2026. On that day, the plaintiff shall complete the cross-examination of D.W1.

                   ii) No further adjournment will be given to the plaintiff for the purpose of cross-examining D.W1.

                   iii) On the closure of evidence, the plaintiff shall make her submissions in the suit by 02.04.2026.

                   iv) The defendants shall complete their submissions by 10.04.2026.

                   v) The learned Subordinate Judge at Ramanathapuram, is requested to enter upon judgement in the suit by 30.04.2026.

                   vi) The cost that has been imposed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Ramanathapuram is extremely paltry. Hence, the cost is revised to Rs.10,000/-, less the amount already deposited.

                   vii) Before opening the evidence on 23.03.2026, the learned Subordinate Judge at Ramanathapuram shall ensure that the cost has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.

                   viii) In case, the cost has not been paid, none of the benefits under this order will inure to the plaintiff.

11. These Civil Revision Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.