Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3252
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
The Bishop of Kottar & Another
Versus
Oor Committee Melaperuvillai Punitha, Jebamalai Matha Church and its Members, Kanyakumari
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1649 & 1650 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
Decided on: 17-09-2014
For the Petitioners:S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, S. Deenadhayalan, Advocate.
The court has discretion to permit for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for Judgment.
Headnote:
Reopening of Evidence - Civil Procedure - 2011 (11) SCC 275 - The court has discretion to permit for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for Judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed applications to reopen and recall the evidence of witnesses for cross-examination, citing delay in obtaining certified copies of documents filed by the respondent. The learned Judge dismissed the applications, leading to the filing of civil revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given by the petitioners were valid and sufficient to reopen and recall the witnesses, as the cross-examination of witnesses was necessary to decide the issue in the suit on merits. The order of the learned Judge was set aside, and both the applications were allowed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in obtaining certified copies of documents justified the reopening and recalling of witnesses for cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has the discretion to permit for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for Judgment.
Final Decision: The civil revision petitions were allowed, and the learned Additional District Munsif, Eraniel, was directed to hear the matter on merits and conduct the trial on day-to-day basis as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
1. These civil revision petitions have been filed to set aside the fair and decretal orders, dated 23.04.2014, passed in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014 in O.S.No.193 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Eraniel.
2. Since common issues are involved in these two civil revision petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners are the defendants, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.193 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel.
4. The respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners filed written statement on 29.07.2011 and contested the suit. After framing the issues, the trial of the suit was commenced and P.W.1 was examined in-chief. The petitioners took number of adjournments for cross examining P.W.1. Since the petitioners took number of adjournments, the evidence of P.W.1 was closed. P.W.2 was examined on behalf of the respondent in-chief. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.107 of 2013, for recalling the evidence of P.W.1, for cross-examination. The application in I.A.No.107 of 2013 was allowed. The petitioners wilfully neglected that opportunity and did not cross-examine P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence was closed and then, P.W.2 was examined. The petitioners subsequently, filed two applications in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, for reopening the respondent's evidence for the purpose of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and recalling the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination. According to the petitioners, the respondent filed 83 documents at the time of examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the petitioners applied for certified copies of the documents filed by the respondent. They did not get the certified copies, when the suit was posted for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioners could not cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2. The certified copies were obtained only on 04.10.2013. After perusing 83 documents, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, for reopening and recalling the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, for cross-examination.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations. According to the respondent, the petitioners are dragging on the proceedings and after commencement of trial, they have taken number of adjournments for cross-examination of P.W.1, but they did not cross-examine them. They also filed T.O.P.No.221 of 2011, for transferring the case to the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. Subsequently, they withdrew the said application after two years. The attitude of the petitioners clearly reveal that they are not interested in conducting the case, because of the delay, activities in the church are affected and worshippers are put to irreparable loss and hardship.
6. The learned Judge considering the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent, dismissed the applications in I.A.Nos.26 and 27 of 2014, on 23.04.2014. Against the said order, both the civil revision petitions are filed.
7. Heard Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent reiterated the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is not the intention of the petitioners to drag on the proceedings. They could not cross-examine the witnesses, as the respondent has filed and marked 83 documents at the time of cross-examination of witnesses. Only after obtaining certified copies of the documents, the petitioners are now in a position to cross-examine the witnesses. According to the petitioners, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the applications without appreciating the facts and law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the p
