Challenging the final orders passed in I.A.Nos.1944 of 2015 & 1945 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Court, Puducherry, the first defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 128 of 2006 for declaration and recovery of possession. The defendants also filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. In the said suit, the first defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1681 of 2014 seeking for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the suit property as on the date of the filing of the suit. After contest, the Trial Court, dismissed the application.
3. As against the order passed by the Trial Court, the first defendant preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (PD) No.1761 of 2015 and this Court, by order dated 03.06.2015, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, gave liberty to the first defendant to let in oral and documentary evidences with regard to valuation of the suit property at the time of trial.
4. After the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (PD) No.1761 of 2015, the first defendant filed the application in I.A.No.1944 of 2015 to recall the plaintiff and the application in I.A.No 1945 of 2015 to reopen P.W.1's evidence for the purpose of further cross examination. The first defendant sought for recall and reopen of P.W.1 for the purpose of putting questions to P.W.1 with regard to valuation of the suit property. The plaintiff filed his counter and opposed the applications.
5. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both the parties dismissed the application in I.A.No.1945 of 2015 stating that the first defendant was not given liberty to further cross examination of P.W.1 and that he was given liberty only to examine fresh witness on his side to claim the value of the property. In view of the order passed in I.A.No.1945 of 2015, the Trial Court also dismissed the application in I.A.No.1944 of 2015.
6. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first defendant wants to put only two or three questions to the plaintiff with regard to the valuation of the property and also submitted that further cross examination of P.W.1 will not take more than 10 minutes.
7. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff submitted that the first defendant has filed the applications only to fill up the lacuna and that he is approaching this court for the 4th occasion, therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, since this Court has given a liberty to the petitioner to let in oral and documentary evidences with regard to valuation of the suit property, in the absence of any suggestive questions put to P.W.1, he may be in a disadvantageous position, therefore, in the interest of justice, the first defendant can be given a final opportunity to further cross examine P.W.1 with regard to the valuation of the suit property.
9. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded.
10. In view of the above, the Principal District Court, Puducherry is directed to complete the further cross examination of P.W.1 within a shortest possible time, without deviating from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also made clear that P.W.1 should appear for cross examination on 21.03.2017. It is also made clear that the first defendant should complete the cross examination on the very same day without seeking for adjournment on any account. Further, it is made clear that the first defendant shall not put any other questions to P.W.1 except with regard to valuation of the suit property.
11. In these circumstances, the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.1944 of 2015 and 1945 of 2015 are set aside. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Since the suit is pending from 2005, I direct the Principal District Court, Puducherry to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2008, on merits and in accordance with law, on or before 30.06.2017. The parties are at liberty to file a memo for advancing the hearing. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.03.2017 Index : Yes/No Note : Issue copy of the order by 16.03.2017 Rj To The Principal District Court, Puducherry M. DURAISWAMY,J., Rj C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3980 & 3981 of 2015 M.P.No.1 of 2015 in CRP (PD)No.3980 of 2015 & CMP No.2967 of 2016 in CRP (PD)No.3980 of 2015 14.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in