The inherent power of the court under Section 151 of CPC can be invoked to reopen evidence for the ends of justice, and the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be used to clarify ambiguities in witness testimony, not to fill omissions.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer:Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated 16.11.2022 made in I.A.Nos.456 of 2022 and 457 of 2022 in O.S.No.144 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.)

1.These civil revision petitions are preferred as against the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.456 of 2022 and 457 of 2022, dated 16.11.2022 in O.S.No.144 of 2013, on the file District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:-

The petition in I.A.No.456 of 2022 was filed by the defendants in the suit to reopen the defendants'' side evidence. The petition in I.A.No.457 of 2022 was filed by the defendants in the suit for further examination of D.W1 on the side of the defendants. After contest, the trial Court dismissed the above petitions. In the impugned order the trial Court has observed as hereunder:-

 Aggrieved by this, the present revision petitions are filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the reasons assigned by the trial Court for dismissing the above applications is incorrect. The trial Court has erroneously observed that as per Section 90(2) of Indian Evidence Act, the presumption shall not be applied to the document, which is a basis of the suit or defence. There is no Section as 90(2) in Indian Evidence Act and the said reasoning applies only to the State of Uttar Pradesh as per their State Amendment. It is further submitted that the reason assigned by the trial Court that as per Section 68 of the Evidence Act, when the document is objected by other side, the witness to the document has to be examined. But the witnesses to the document are no more and the trial Court without proper consideration of Section 68 of Evidence Act, which clearly says that, it shall not be necessary to call and attesting witness in proof of execution of any document, which has been registered as in accordancewith Indian Registration Act and passed the impugned order erroneously. The Trial Court ought to have considered the registered sale deed dated 10.03.1927 executed by one Sokkayi W/o.Malayakonar, which is a crucial document to establish the fact that Ex.P1 is a forged document. Hence, the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications filed by the revision petitioners to reopen the case and recall the witness and to permit the witness to mark the above said document.

4. Whether the case ought to be reopened and whether a witness can be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for further elaboration of aspects left out in evidence already closed, is the issue for consideration in this case.

5. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 2013 for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit property by the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff is that, the suit properties in item Nos.1 and 2 originally belonged to one Sokkayi, W/o. Malayakonar, who belong to Kurunthirakottai Village. Even before the settlement proceedings, the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, namely Kaveri, W/o.Karuppaiahkonar on 07.05.1955 purchased the above property for valid consideration under an unregistered sale deed. After the said purchase, she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit Item Nos.1 and 2 by paying necessary kist to the said property. However, the patta No.468 was wrongly issued in the name of Sokkayi. But the said Kaveri, maternal grandmother of the plaintiff, was alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Kaveri died intestate before 31 years leaving behind his son Chockalingam Konar, who is the father of the plaintiff and her daughters, namely, Mariayee, Amirtham, Seethalakshmi, Annalakshmi as her legal heirs. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Chockalinga Konar also died intestate on 08.08.2008 leaving behi