1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD)(MD) No.236 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 S.Kanagalakshmi ..Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Syed Battani 2.Singaram @ Chithambaram Pillai 3.C.Subbammal ..Respondents/Defendants PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 29.09.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010 in Original Suit No.715 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh ORDER The impugned order dated 29.09.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010 in Original Suit No.715 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.715 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010 so as to reopen Original Suit No.715 of 2007 on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010 in Original Suit No.715 of 2007 by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has emphatically contended that in order to examine an attestor of a will, which has been relied upon on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff, the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. For better appreciation, the Court has to look into the affidavit filed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010. In paragraph No.2 of the affidavit, it has been simply stated that the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has decided to examine a person. It is not an exaggeration to say that even the name of the person and also for the purpose for which he is to be examined have not at all been mentioned in the affidavit. Considering the bald averments made in the affidavit, it is highly impossible and improbable to allow the present petition. The Court below has rightly dismissed the same. 6. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.336 of 2010 in Original Suit No.715 of 2007 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a similar petition by setting forth all details. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ACCOUNTS) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR smn To The Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi. DM:2011:FEB:28: C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.236 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 08.02.2011 2P.2C:; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/