The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be used sparingly, and exceptional circumstances are required to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.2945/1999 before the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for the following prayer;

i)for a dedication that the plaintiff is the real owner of lands measuring Acre 1.44 in S.no.43 part, Kolathur Village, Perambur Taluk, Chennai District.

ii)Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from alienating the suit property to any third parties.

The respondents/defendants also filed written statement denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.10519/2009 for reopening the evidence on the side petitioners/plaintiffs and permit the petitioners to examine further witnesses on their side. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court is wrong in dismissing the application without any basis and justification. He further submitted that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law, erroneous, biased and against the probabilities of the case. He further contended that the trial Court failed to note that unless the 15 witnesses inclusive of Government witnesses are examined and documents are not produced by the Government, the petitioner will not be able to prove the case. Therefore, the trial Court erroneously closed the petitioners side and dismissed the petition for reopen. The trial Court ought to have seen that the case was not adjourned time to time not at the instance of the petitioners. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have given opportunity to examine the witnesses and order of the trial Court is also perverse. He also relied on the following judgments to support his contention.

i.Mrs.Arumaiammal Vs. Manamayee and 3 others reported in 2001 (4) CTC 475.

ii.J.Samuel Vs. S.Mathisa Pandian and 2 Others reported in 1998 (1) CTC 296.

iii.Eswari and 3 others Vs. Umadevi and another made in CRP.PD.1297/2009 dated 17.09.2009.

Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court has given enough opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record. The petitioners/plaintiffs engaged in real estate business. The petitioners/plaintiffs used to buy vast extent of land and spent huge amount for development and sell plots to purchasers at a profit. For this business, the petitioners/plaintiffs required financial assistance. They used to approach the respondents/defendants for the financial assistance. The respondents/defendants take the title deeds in their name and after development and layout sanction etc., they themselves sell plots to the nominee of the developer and take their interest proportionately. In October1987 lands measuring acre 1.44 in S.No.43 part, at Kolathur Village, Perambur was purchased by the petitioners/plaintiffs for development. The petitioners/plaintiffs required 10 lakhs for developing the said land. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs approached the respondents/defendants for financial assistance. The respondents/defendants also agreed to lend that amount on condition that the sale deed or deeds shall be in their name so that they feel secured for the payment. Due to the same, there was a misunderstanding between the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants. Further it was alleged that the respondents/defendants are trying