Challenge in this civil revision petition is to the Order dated 13.04.2009 in I.A.No.2553/2009 in O.S.No.890/2002 on the file of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissing the petition preferred by the respondents to reopen their side and to adduce further evidence.
2.The suit in O.S.No.890/2002 was preferred by the revision petitioners against the respondents praying for a decree of declaration and consequential injunction. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement.
3.Subsequently, the matter was taken up for trial and evidence on the petitioners' side was closed and the matter was posted for adducing evidence on the side of the respondents.
4.While the matters stood thus, petitioners preferred an application in I.A.No.2553/2009 to reopen their evidence and to examine further witnesses to substantiate their contentions.
5.In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.2553/2009, it was the contention of the petitioners that only PW-1 was examined on their side and she was also cross examined. However, on account of her illness, she was not in a position to attend the Court subsequently and to take steps for examining further witnesses.
6.The application was opposed by the respondents by filing counter. According to the respondents, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to adduce evidence on their side. However, the petitioners were interested only in dragging the proceedings without assisting the Court in concluding the matter. Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the application.
7.The learned Trial Judge found that PW-1 was examined in chief on 07.07.2005 and the matter was posted subsequently for cross examination. Cross examination of PW-1 was pending right from 2005. Petitioners have also filed applications to receive additional documents and all those applications were allowed. The petitioners were attending Court on the date of hearing. Ultimately, the Court was constrained to close the evidence on the side of the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that no reasons were made out to permit the petitioners to reopen their side and to examine further witnesses. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. It is the said Order which is impugned in this civil revision petition.
8.It is true that the petitioners were given due opportunity by the trial Court to examine their witnesses. The details as contained in the impugned order relates to the steps taken by the revision petitioners for the purpose of filing additional documents. Those applications were allowed by the trial Court and therefore, pendency and subsequent disposal of those applications cannot be taken as ground to reject the application filed by the petitioners to adduce further evidence. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and as such, they have to substantiate their pleadings by way of evidence. In fact, Civil Procedure Code is also a bunch of principles of natural justice. Nobody should have the feeling that his case has not been permitted to be projected properly before the trial Court. It is true that the petitioners were not diligent enough to produce evidence before the trial Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that only on account of such negligence, petitioners cannot be denied their opportunity to substantiate their contention as found in the plaint. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was not correct in his approach in rejecting the application.
9.However, under the guise of adducing further evidence, petitioners cannot be permitted to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge is directed to fix a convenient date of hearing for the examination of further witnesses on the side of the revision petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no necessity for issuing summons to the witnesses and the petitioners herein would be producing their witnesses. Therefore, on the date on which the learned Trial Judge posts the matter for further evidence, petitioners have to produce witnesses to be examined on their side and those witnesses have to be cross examined on the very same day, or at least by the next date, by the learned counsel for the respondents. In case petitioners fail to produce witnesses on the date of hearing, it would be open to the learned Trial Judge to close the evidence unless the learned Judge was of the view that further opportunity has to be given to the petitioners.
10.The suit is of the year 2002 and as such, the learned Trial Judge is requested to take early steps for disposal.
11.In the result, the order dated 13.04.2009 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently M.P.No.1/2009 is closed.
tar To The XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai