Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Chunduru Sambasivarao, S/o Late Venkata Subbaiah – Appellant
Versus
Chunduru Siva Panchakshari, D/o Late Venkata Subbaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.4312 of 2017 & 4234 of 2017
Decided on : 09-03-2023
Order : Rule 3 of Order XVI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Reopening of Matter - Insufficient Cause for Omission to Mention Witness - Dismissal of Revision Petitions
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to reopen the matter and adduce further evidence by summoning the Tashildar and producing documents. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient cause for not taking steps earlier when his evidence was recorded.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff did not provide any satisfactory reason for not taking steps earlier and did not give any reason, much less sufficient cause, for the omission to mention the name of the proposed witness earlier, despite having knowledge before the commencement of his evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff provided sufficient cause for the omission to mention the witness earlier and whether the trial Court committed any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Rule 3 of Order XVI of the Civil Procedure Code, which states that a party must show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of a witness. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient cause, and therefore, there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the trial Court.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous applications were to stand closed as a sequel to the decision.
ORDER :
Heard both sides.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the trial Court dismissed the application to reopen the matter, and permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence on his side by issuing summons to the Tashildar and also to produce documents. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff commenced the evidence before the Court on 22.11.2016 and it was completed on 09.02.2017. Later, defendant evidence was completed on 05.07.2017.
3. Further, the plaintiff did not assign any satisfactory reason for not taking steps earlier at the stage, when his evidence was recorded.
4. The plaintiff affidavit filed before the trial Court, would indicate that he had knowledge about the proceedings before the Tashildar right from 01.04.2015 and in fact, he was having a copy of the proceedings issued by the Tashildar.
5. The plaintiff did not assign any reason, why this application was not filed earlier at the time when plaintiff evidence was recorded.
6. Rule 3 of Order XVI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is as under:
SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS
1. List of witness and summons to witness :-
(1)…….
(2)…….
(3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.
7. The above Rule states that the party shall show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.
8. The revision petitioner in his affidavit filed before the trail Court did not give any reason much less sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of the proposed witness earlier, though he had knowledge before commencement of his evidence in the year 2017.
9. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or material irregularity committed by the trial Court in the impugned order.
10. Accordingly, this revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
A party must show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of a witness, as per Rule 3 of Order XVI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion in managing evidence, ruling that repeated failures by the plaintiff to present evidence justified the dismissal of the reopening application.
Defendants must comply with procedural requirements and take timely action to adduce evidence, failing which their plea to reopen evidence may be dismissed.
Engaging a new counsel cannot be a ground for reopening evidence and filling up lacunae in the case.
Failure to timely submit additional witness lists justified dismissal of petition to reopen evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
