HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.R.P.Nos. 3648 and 3672 of 2014 DATE: 27.12.2014 Between:
Sugandham Shankar and two others .. Petitioners And A. Goverdhan Reddy and five others .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:-
Inasmuch as the question of fact and law and the parties involved in these two Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.
While C.R.P.No. 3648 of 2014 is filed against the Common Order dated 10.09.2014 in I.A.No.1074 of 2014 in O.S.No.30 of 2008, C.R.P.No. 3672 of 2014 is preferred against the same order in I.A.No.1075 of 2014 in O.S.No. 30 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners-defendants for reopening the suit and recalling the witnesses i.e. PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination respectively, were dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
A perusal of the order under revision reveals that after PW1 was examined in chief, the defendants cross-examined PW1 on three occasions i.e. 20.11.2013, 06.03.2014 and 09.04.2014, and thereafter, PW2 was examined. On 25.06.2014, the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed. The affidavits filed by the petitioners-defendants in support of the interlocutory applications would disclose that after the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2014 for defendants’ evidence. The affidavits also show that it is essential to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination to elicit certain facts which would be helpful in judicious disposal of the case.
In a judgment reported in Bagal Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store
[1]
, the Apex Court, while interpreting Order 18 Rule-17 C.P.C. on the scope and object of reopening the case and recalling witnesses, held to the following extent:
“It enables the Courts to clarify any doubts regarding evidence led by parties - It is not meant to fill up omissions in already adduced evidence – Power conferred upon court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be used either on application by parties or suo motu but it has to be used sparingly in an appropriate case – Witnesses cannot be recalled and re-examined merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the other side – Power thereunder if used in a routine manner would defeat the very purpose of amendments to Civil Procedure Code – where application is bona fide and leading of additional evidence would clarify doubts of the court and earlier non- production was for valid reasons, then recalling of witness is permissible.”
The purport of the impugned order is manifest that three months after closure of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the petitioners herein, who are defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, filed the interlocutory applications, and except a mere pleading in both the affidavits filed in support thereof that the plaintiffs’ evidence has to be recalled by reopening the suit, no specific averment regarding factual aspects to be ascertained nor any valid reasons to be elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses, are mentioned. The affidavits also do not reveal on what nature of facts the petitioners sought to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2 and they seem to be not bona fide ones allowing them to lead additional evidence and there are no compelling and acceptable reasons enabling the trial Court to consider such applications and render justice. Therefore, the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court would squarely apply to the case on hand. That apart, the suit is of the year 2008 and at this length of time, it may not be appropriate to allow the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses inasmuch as though ample opportunity was given to the petitioners, no steps were taken by them to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2 and the applications are bereft of bona fide material.
In the light of the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the pleadings made in the applications for reopening the suit and recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination respectively are not convincing. Hence, the trial Court is perfectly justified in dismissing the applications and the common order under revision cannot be interfered with.
The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of any merit, and accordingly, dismissed. However, it is always left open to the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 to 4 to bring in evidence which would support their case, through their witnesses. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the revision petitions, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 27.12.2014 bcj
[1] (2013) 14 SCC 1