The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party, after filing a separate written statement and pleading collusion and fraud, is entitled to cross-examine witnesses based on their written statement, and the court may allow the recall of witnesses for clarification at any stage of the suit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 09.08.2018, passed in I.A.No.79 of 2018, in O.S.No.154 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 09.08.2018, passed in I.A.No.80 of 2018, in O.S.No.154 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.)

Common Order

1.These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order, dated 09.08.2018, passed in I.A.Nos.79 and 80 of 2018, in O.S.No.154 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.

2. In C.R.P.(MD)No.1399 of 2019, the revision petitioners are the defendants 16 to 18 and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. In C.R.P.(MD)No.1400 of 2019, the revision petitioners are the defendants 16 to 18, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 33 are the defendants 1 to 15 & 19 to 33, before the trial Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. Short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition, are as under:

5.1. The plaintiff / first respondent has filed a suit for specific performance, based upon the sale agreement, dated 13.06.1997. It appears that, originally the petitioners herein have adopted the written statement, which was filed by the 33rd defendant and it also appears that they have initially engaged a counsel, who appeared for the 33rd defendant. It seems that these petitioners have filed a memo before the Court on 11.03.2015, withdrawing the vakalat given in the name of one V.S.Shanmugam Ayya, who is the counsel of the 33rd defendant and it also reveals that subsequent to the withdrawal of the vakalat, they have filed a separate written statement on 17.12.2015.

5.2. While this being so, the petitioners herein have filed an application for reopen the petitioners'' side evidence and for recall so as to cross examine the plaintiff, third defendant and the 33rd defendant. The said application was stoutly objected by the plaintiff as well as the 33rd defendant, on the ground that having engaged the counsel of the 33rd respondent and filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 33rd defendant, the very conduct of the petitioner in filing the application, latter on again to cross examine the witness, seems to be fallacious.

6. In similar line, the third defendant-Mr.Partheeban has also filed the counter statement. He contended that having cancelled the vakalat, on 04.06.2015, filing the instant application during 2018, would only exemplify the fraudulent conduct of the petitioner. This counter statement was also adopted by the respondents 1 to 10, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 33.

7. After considering either side submissions, the learned trial Judge has rejected both the application on the ground that, when actually the third defendant was not examined, as a witness the very prayer to recall the third defendant would become meaningless, and also found that, when the petitioner come forward to mark certain additional documents through cross examination, an application has not been filed for receipt of the additional documents, and it was also the finding of the learned trial Judge that having cancelled the vakalat during 2015 filing of an application at a belated stage would also go counter to the petitioners'' prayer. Hence, the trial Court has dismissed this application.

8. Aggrieved with the order of the learned trial Judge, rejecting his application to recall the witnesses as well as reopen plaintiff''s evidence, the petitioners have come forward with the instant revision petitions.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, they have cancelled the vakalat of their previous counsel, and that when they have filed a separate written statement, in th