Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 59
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
Baby Rajagopal @ Baby Nagalakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
Sivakumar & Others – Respondent
CRP(PD)(MD)Nos. 1642 of 2017 to 1644 of 2017 & CMP(MD)No. 9195 of 2017
Decided On : 18-01-2018
For the Petitioner:D. Nallathambi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of interlocutory applications with the intention to protract the proceedings and fill up lacuna in the evidence may lead to dismissal, especially when the proposed documents are within the petitioner's possession but were not marked despite repeated opportunities.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Interlocutory Applications - 2017-3-L.W. 738, 2016-2-L.W.856, 2016-4-L.W.447 - The court dismissed the interlocutory applications filed by the defendants to re-open, recall DW1, and mark additional documents, holding that they were filed to drag on the proceedings and fill up lacuna in the evidence. The court found that the proposed documents, obtained under the Right to Information Act, were within the petitioner's possession but were not marked despite repeated opportunities. The court concluded that the intention of the petitioner in filing the applications was to protract the proceedings and fill up lacuna in the evidence, and therefore dismissed the revision petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitions were filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants filed interlocutory applications to re-open, recall DW1, and mark additional documents, which were dismissed by the Trial Court. The 2nd defendant, the revision petitioner, contended that the proposed documents were necessary and official documents obtained under the Right to Information Act for deciding the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the revision petitions were meritless as the petitioner had not availed repeated opportunities to mark the proposed documents, which were within her possession. The Court concluded that the intention of the petitioner in filing the applications was to protract the proceedings and fill up lacuna in the evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the dismissal of the interlocutory applications filed by the defendants and the contention of the revision petitioner regarding the necessity of the proposed documents obtained under the Right to Information Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the fact that the proposed documents were within the petitioner's possession but were not marked despite repeated opportunities. The Court concluded that the intention of the petitioner in filing the applications was to protract the proceedings and fill up lacuna in the evidence.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Court below and concluded that the interference of the Court was not necessary.
1. These revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.07.2017 passed in I.A.Nos.227, 228 and 229 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
2. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 9 are defendants 6 to 9, 1, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2013 for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants filed written statement and the plaintiff also filed reply statement. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW3 were examined. After closure of the defendants' side evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the defendants 1 to 5 filed interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.227, 228 and 229 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2013 to re-open, recall DW1 and to mark 11 additional documents.
3. The revision petitioner/2nd defendant who was examined as DW1, averred that when she was cross examined, she came to know that she did not let in any documentary evidence for the questions posed to her during her cross-examination which was not wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 5 sought to re-open and recall DW1 and to mark additional documents.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the interlocutory applications holding that those interlocutory applications have been filed only to drag on the proceedings. It has been observed by the Trial Court that the revision petitioner/2nd defendant has not stated any thing about when she received the documents sought to be marked as additional evidence and she has not even whispered about the so-called documents sought to be marked when she was cross-examined by the plaintiff.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the interlocutory applications, the 2nd defendant has come up with the present revision petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Trial Court ignoring the fact that the proposed documents are necessary and official documents obtained under the Right to Information Act for deciding the suit, erroneously dismissed the interlocutory applications. It is further contended that the Trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the defendants' side evidence was closed only in the month of January 2017 and therefore, there is no delaying tactics on the part of the defendants 1 to 5 in filing the applications to re-open and re-call and to mark additional documents which were filed during February 2017. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed those applications.
7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy reported in 2011-3-L.W. 738
(ii) R.Saroja vs. P.Rajaram and others reported in 2016-2-L.W.856
(iii) Ram Rati vs. Mange Ram (d) Through Lrs. and others reported in 2016-4-L.W.447.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submitted that after closure of evidence on either side, the arguments of the plaintiff were heard and the plaintiff also filed notes of arguments. When the suit was posted for arguments of the defendants, the defendants filed I.A.No.1233/2016 to recall DW2 which was allowed with costs. Thereafter, DW2 was examined and the suit was again posted for arguments. At that juncture, the defendants 1 to 5 filed the present interlocutory applications to re-open and re-call DW1 and to mark additional documents which according to the learned counsel is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings and to fill up lacuna in the evidence of the defendants. It is further contended that the proposed documents were in the custody of DW1 and without marking the same during his chief examination, he filed the present applications with mala fide intention to drag on the proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.V.Matha Prasad vs. Renuka Dev
