HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1267 OF 2011 Dated 9th August, 2011 Between: Thurimella Venkatasubbaiah. ….Petitioner. And: Kaliki Rajamma. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1267 OF 2011 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 4th February, 2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.30 of 2011 in O.S.No.62 of 2006. Petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking to declare the plaintiff’s exclusive right, title and possession over the plaint schedule mentioned property and for recovery of possession of the same and for costs of the suit. Before the trial Court, during the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.30 of 2011 in O.S.No.62 of 2006 under Section 94(e) and Section 151 C.P.C. on behalf of the 2nd defendant to re-open the said case which was posted for arguments to 20.1.2011 to enable the 2nd defendant to adduce his side evidence. Even though notice was given to the counsel for the plaintiff before the trial Court, counter was not filed by the plaintiff. The Court below having heard the matter and having gone through the docket orders in the main suit dated 24.11.2010, 14.12.2010, 23.12.2010 and 28.12.2010, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the 2nd defendant. On 6.4.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay as prayed for, for a period of two weeks from that day. Subsequently, the matter underwent several adjournments by extending interim stay sought for. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant that the trial Court ought to have reopened the case which was posted for arguments to enable the 2nd defendant to adduce his side of evidence, but the learned trial Court rejected his application. Further, it is contended that the trial Court ought to have seen and considered the present application filed under Section 94(e) of C.P.C. which says “to make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient”, but the learned trial Court rejected the application which is bad in law and liable to be dismissed. It is his further contention that the trial Court ought to have provided the opportunity to the 2nd defendant to adduce his evidence instead of dismissing his application which is bad in law. Apart from that, it is his further contention that the trial Court did not assign any reasons while dismissing the petition. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that order impugned is justified and it does not warrant any interference by this Court and as such, this revision is liable to be dismissed. I have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking to declare the plaintiff’s exclusive right, title and possession over the plaint schedule mentioned property and for recovery of possession of the same. I have gone through the copy of docket orders dated 24.11.2010, 14.12.2010, 23.12.2010 and 28.12.2010, produced before this court during the course of arguments. On a perusal of the said document orders, there is no adjournment on 25.12.2010 as pleaded by the 2nd defendant. As per the copy of the docket proceedings produced before this Court, the trial Court closed the evidence on defendants’ side on 28.12.2010 itself and posted the matter to 31.12.2010 for arguments. The trial Court having observed that since the plea of the defendant that as the suit was posted on 25.12.2010, on that day it was public holiday, thereby the Court rectified and posted to 28.12.2010, is baseless and intentional, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the 2nd defendant. The suit in question is of the year 2006 and the matter is at the stage of arguments. Before going to deal with the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that a lis between the parties, shall be adjudicated on its own merits, but not on mere technicalities so as avoid the multiplicity of proceedings of this nature. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the negligence on the part of the 2nd defendant in prosecuting the matter, I feel it just and proper to give an opportunity to the 2nd defendant for adducing evidence on his side by allowing this revision remanding the matter to the trial Court and by directing the 2nd defendant paying Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs, which include costs of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) already imposed by the trial Court as a condition precedent to set aside the order impugned. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by remanding the matter to the trial Court and by directing the trial Court to proceed with the trial on 2nd defendant’s side on condition of the 2nd defendant paying a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs to the legal services authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consequently, the order impugned herein is set aside. Further the trial Court shall fix a date for adducing evidence on defendants’ side and on such fixation, both parties shall attend the Court, without fail and cooperate with the trial Court in proceeding with the trial. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 9th August, 2011. Note: Issue CC in two days. BO. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1267 OF 2011 Dated 9th August, 2011