The main legal point established is that the opportunity to recall witnesses and cross-examine them further should be granted when cross-examination alone cannot fill up the lacuna in the evidence.

ORDER :

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Final order passed in I.A.Nos.43 & 44 of 2015 in O.S.No.208 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam dated 17.03.2015.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner to set aside the fair and final orders passed in I.A.Nos.43 & 44 of 2015 in O.S.No.208 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam, dated 17.03.2015.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.208 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, for the relief of declaration of their title over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. During trial, both sides adduced evidence and when the suit was posted for further evidence on the side of the defendants, the second defendant had filed an application in I.A.No.43 of 2015 to re-open the evidence of the plaintiffs and also filed another application in I.A.No.44 of 2015 to recall P.Ws 1 and 2 for further cross-examination. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the said petitions by separate orders dated 17.03.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner / 2nd defendant has filed these present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Heard Mr.V.S.Kesavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit property belongs to the defendants by virtue of settlement deed executed by their grandfather dated 22.09.2004, but the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the above suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the suit property belongs to them as per the sale deed dated 17.10.1945 and also patta granted in their favour. He further submitted that during trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff was examined as PW1, Revenue Inspector was examined as PW2 and thereafter, the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was closed and the petitioner herein examined himself as DW1 and the case was posted for further evidence on the side of the defendants. He further submitted that during cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, the petitioner's counsel omitted to ask questions with regard to how the vendor of the plaintiff got title over the suit property and also with regard to patta and chitta and hence, the petitioner/2nd defendant had filed an application to re-open the evidence of plaintiffs and another application to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination, but the trial court without considering the said fact had dismissed the said petitions and therefore, he prayed to allow these CRPs and set aside the orders passed by the trial court and allow the applications filed by the petitioner in I.A.Nos.43 & 44 of 2015 in O.S.No.208 of 2009.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the trial court had dismissed the said petitions relying upon certain decisions stating that if the said petitions are allowed, the petitioner/2nd defendant may fill up the lacuna. He further submitted that those decisions were rendered in respect of the petitions filed to recall the witness for taking further chief-examination whereas these petitions have been filed to recall the PWs,1 and 2 for further cross-examination. He further submitted that by way of cross-examination, lacuna cannot be filled up and therefore, the decisions which were relied upon by the trial court will not apply to the facts of this case. Hence, he prayed to allow these Civil Revisions Petitions.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed the above suit in the year 2009 for the relief of declaration of their titl