IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to give the defendant an opportunity to lead evidence despite her absence on one occasion and held that eschewing the evidence already concluded while allowing further evidence to be recorded was unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT

1. Can the evidence in chief-examination and crossexamination already concluded be eschewed if the witness fails to turn up to lead the further evidence which is subsequently allowed to be recorded?

2. These civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dtd. 29/9/2022 dismissing I.A. Nos.1125 and 1126 of 2022 in O.S. No.60 of 2013 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur filed by the defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') to set aside the order dtd. 11/8/2022 eschewing the chief affidavit of D.W.1 and closing the evidence of defendant and further to recall the defendant for further evidence as allowed in I.A. No.834 of 2022 and to receive documents as allowed in I.A. No.8 of 2022.

3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant took a plea of forgery and fabrication of the suit promissory note alleging that there were business dealings between her husband and the husband of the plaintiff and that the husband of the defendant borrowed Rs.8,50,000.00 from the husband of the plaintiff and executed promissory note in his favour, however, subsequently, as the husband of the defendant incurred heavy loss, he filed insolvency petition in I.P. No.24 of 2013 against his creditors among whom the husband of the plaintiff is the 4th respondent therein and as such, since there are no movable or immovable properties of the husband of the defendant, but the defendant has immovable properties, the suit promissory note was brought into existence to recover huge amounts. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend huge amount.

5. After closing the evidence of D.W.1, both in chiefexamination and cross-examination, she filed I.A. No.8 of 2022 and I.A. No.834 of 2022 for the purpose of recalling her and filing certified copies of petition in I.P. No.24 of 2013 and judgment in O.S. No.156 of 2013 which was filed by the plaintiff herein against the husband of the defendant. Both petitions were allowed and the matter was posted for taking further evidence of D.W.1 on record. The matter stood posted to 11/8/2022 for the said purpose. However, on 11/8/2022 there was no representation for the defendant till 5.00 PM. As such, the trial court passed the order eschewing the chief affidavit of D.W.1 and closed the evidence of the defendant and posted the matter to 16/8/2022 for arguments.

6. Having aggrieved by the order, the defendant filed in I.A. No.1125 of 2022 to reopen the evidence of defendant and I.A. No.1126 of 2022 to set aside eschewed order dt.11/8/2022 and to recall D.W.1 on the ground that a day before passing the orders, the petitioner along with the entire family went to Hyderabad as her brother-in-law was admitted in a private hospital in serious condition and it was informed to the counsel, the counsel reporting the same requested the Court for an adjournment, but the petition was dismissed on 29/9/2022 observing that the suit was coming for the evidence of the defendant for more than 3 1/2 years after completion of the cross-examination of D.W.1 on 12/11/2018, however both the petitions in I.A. No.8 of 2022 and 834 of 2022 were allowed and the matter was posted to 11/8/2022 on which date the evidence of the defendant was closed and the evidence of D.W.1 was eschewed. Even thereafter, the matter was posted to 5/9/2022 from 16/8/2022, and then the petitioner came up with I.A. No.1126 of 2022. It was returned and the suit was posted to 12/9/2022 for argument and thereafter posted to 26/9/2022 for judgment, on which date the petition was returned with objections and the case was posted to 29/9/222, but in the meanwhile the petitions were represented on 27/9/2022. The trial court further observed that to substantiate the reason