1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2011 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.K.Saravanakumar 2.Chinnammal 3.M.Krishnan .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants Vs. Kaniammal .. RespondentRespondent/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 23.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.515 of 2011 in Original Suit No.109 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Senkottai. For Petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramaiah ORDER The order dated 23.06.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.515 of 2011 in Original Suit No.109 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Senkottai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.109 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants. In Original Suit No.109 of 2009, on the side of the plaintiff evidence has been let in and subsequently closed. On the side of the defendants, the third defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and in order to recall D.W.1, the present petition has been filed. The Court below has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that the third defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and during the course of cross-examination, a suggestion has been put to him to the effect that before coming the plaintiff to Sub Registrar's Office, the document in question has been prepared and the same has been denied by him, but the Court below has not properly recorded the answer given by D.W.1 and under the said circumstances D.W.1 has to be recalled for the purpose of clearing ambiguity and due to that the present petition has been filed, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that after making cross-examination to D.W.1, the counsel of the respondent has left the Court and without his knowledge some inter-lineation has been made in the cross-examination done to D.W.1 and subsequently on the basis of the representation made by the counsel of the respondent, the said inter-lineation has been removed and further the present petition has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 filed so as to fill up the lacuna and there is no ambiguity in the answer given by D.W.1 and under the said circumstances, the present petition is not factually maintainable and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is not liable to be set aside. 5. It is an admitted fact that D.W.1 has had no role either in execution or attestation of the alleged document relied upon by the contesting defendants. He simply accompanied with the persons, who have gone to Sub Registrar's Office. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has putforth his contention only on the basis of inter-lineation made in the deposition of D.W.1 and its subsequent removal. In fact, this Court has perused the relevant portion of the cross- examination done to D.W.1. It has been specifically stated in the cross- examination of D.W.1 that prior to advent of the plaintiff to the Sub Registrar's Office, the document in question has been prepared. 6. As rightly conceded on either side, in the deposition of D.W.1 a lineation has been made for the purpose of giving negative answer. But subsequently, the same has been removed. Now the specific deposition of D.W.1 is that prior to advent of the plaintiff to Sub Registrar's Office, the document in question has been prepared. Considering the fact that in the cross-examination of D.W.1, specific answer is in existence and the same does not suffer any ambiguity, the very same witness cannot be recalled so as to give negative answer. If really such answer has been given by D.W.1 as stated on the side of the petitioners/revision petitioners, definitely the Court must take a definite stand to the effect that inter-lineation made is correct. But the Court below has subsequently erased the inter-lineation. Therefore as it is D.W.1 has given a positive answer and the same does not suffer from any ambiguity and further the same cannot be rectified by way of recalling D.W.1. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.515 of 2011 in Original Suit No.109 of 2009 by the District Munsif Court, Senkottai is confirmed. The District Munsif Court, Senkottai is directed to proceed not on the basis of the observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Munsif, Senkottai, Tirunelveli District Copy to : The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramaiah, Advocate, SR.No.44940 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2011 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 smn/TR: 02.01.2012 : 2P/4C 21.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/