Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
S.K. Sreedhar - Petitioner
Vs.
R.Raghavan - Respondents
C.R.P (PD) Nos.4262 and 4263 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011
Decided On : 16.02.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. R. Natarajan
For Respondents: Mr. T.G. Dhinesh for Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 227 - further evidence – Condo nation of delay - Respondents herein plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree directing petitioner herein defendant to produce statement of accounts with regard to running account of financial transaction he had with first plaintiff for and to reconcile statement of account as per plaint document namely acknowledgement of Defendant’s Lawyer for a mandatory injunction directing revision petitioner defendant to return blank cheques and blank promissory notes allegedly extorted from respondents herein plaintiffs in and for a permanent injunction restraining revision petitioner defendant from making use of blank promissory notes and blank cheques allegedly extorted from revision petitioner defendant – Held, This court finds substance in contention counsel for petitioner defendant - Very fact that counsel for respondents plaintiffs took nearly eight months for completing cross examination of would make it clear that exhaustive cross examination had been made besides making an attempt to drag on case as long as possible - Fact that after closure of evidence on both sides parties through their advocates advanced oral arguments without any murmur and also submitted written arguments based on which case was reserved and the judgment was scheduled to be pronounced and further fact that even on date fixed for pronouncement of judgment namely trial judge did not pronounce judgment and case came to be adjourned for judgment till respondents herein plaintiffs filed applications for reopening and recalling are to be taken into consideration - Short affidavit filed in support of petitions contains following averments alone and it shall be expedient to extract relevant portion - I humbly submit that defendant was examined and his evidence was over - He has not let in any further evidence – court humbly submit that some more questions to be asked in cross examination of defendant pursuant to some more documents – Further court came to know later some of aspects has to be asked and court instructed my Advocate to further cross examine defendant – court humbly submit that in interest of justice this Humble Court may be pleased to permit me to recall for further cross examination and for that purpose case has got to be reopened on my side otherwise court will be put to very great hardship - A perusal of same will make it clear that respondents herein plaintiffs had not made out any case and they had not even stated any valid reason for seeking reopening of case and recalling for further cross-examination - Still trial judge seems to have leaned towards respondents herein plaintiffs and passed impugned common order - This court does have no hesitation in coming to conclusion that common order of trial judge is a fit one for being interfered with and set aside by exercising power of superintendence of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India as the said order cannot stand scrutiny of the court – petition allowed
These revisions have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of the common order passed by the learned trial judge (VII Assistant Judge), City Civil Court, Chennai dated 28.07.2011 made in I.A.Nos.8253 and 8254 of 2011 in O.S.No.12666/2009.
2. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.12666 of 2009 for a decree directing the petitioner herein/defendant to produce statement of accounts with regard to the running account of financial transaction he had with the first plaintiff for the years 2005-2007 and to reconcile the statement of account as per plaint document No.18, namely acknowledgement of the Defendant’s Lawyer, for a mandatory injunction directing the revision petitioner/defendant to return the blank cheques and blank promissory notes allegedly extorted from the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the years 2005-2007 and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant from making use of the blank promissory notes and blank cheques allegedly extorted from the revision petitioner/defendant.
3. The suit was contested by the revision petitioner/defendant. The trial progressed in a slow pace due to the repeated adjournments taken by the respondents herein/plaintiffs. Even for the completion of the examination of the revision petitioner/defendant, who figured as the sole witness (DW1) on his side, nearly eight months came to be consumed. Thereafter the counsel appearing for both parties advanced their oral arguments, besides submitting written arguments and the case was reserved for judgment to be pronounced on 28.03.2011. Even on the day fixed for the pronouncement of the judgment, namely 28.03.2011, the trial judge did not pronounce judgment and the case came to be adjourned. During the month of April 2011, the respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the above said I.A.Nos.8253 and 8254 of 2011 for reopening the case and for recalling DW1 for further cross examination.
4. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein/defendant by filing a detailed common counter affidavit contending that the filing of those applications was nothing but an attempt to protract the case, besides pointing out that the supporting affidavit did not make out a case for reopening the case and recalling of DW1 for further cross examination.
5. The learned trial judge chose to allow the petitions by the impugned common order dated 28.07.2011. In the said order, the learned trial judge observed that the counsel for the respondents herein/plaintiffs wanted to cross examine DW1 based on certain documents and that denying such an opportunity would result in an irreparable loss and hardship to the respondents herein/plaintiffs, whereas granting such an opportunity to the respondents herein/plaintiffs would not cause such hardship or loss to the revision petitioner/plaintiff comparable to the hardships of the respondents herein/plaintiffs in the event of rejection or the dismissal of the petitions. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge allowed both the petitions.
6. Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, after taking this court through the averments made in the supporting affidavit and also the counter averments made in the counter affidavit, contends that no valid reason has been assigned by the respondents in the supporting affidavit seeking reopening of the case and recalling of DW1 and that excepting a bald statement that certain questions were omitted to be put to DW1 when he was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondents herein/plaintiffs, no other reason worth mentioning came to be assigned by the respondents herein/plaintiff. The learned counsel also pointed out the fact that the affidavit did not refer to any document with reference to which DW1 was sought to be cross-examined further and that the respondents herein/plaintiffs had also failed to state the particulars of the documents based on which further cross-examination was sought
