Back
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Geetha Marman – Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 28.06.2023 in I.A.Nos.448 and 449 of 2023 in O.S.No.371 of 2010 passed by the learned District Munsif, Avinashi respectively)
Common Order:
1. Since the issue and the parties involved in both the petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. The present Revisions have been filed to set aside order dated 28.06.2023 in I.A.Nos.448 and 449 of 2023 in O.S.No.371 of 2010 passed by the learned District Munsif, Avinashi respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
(i) The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs have preferred O.S.No.371 of 2010 for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. The respondents / defendants filed written statement to the suit. Pending suit, the petitioners / plaintiffs initially preferred I.A.No.627 of 2017, to amend the pleadings and the trial court dismissed the said petition on 20.06.2017. The petitioners have preferred CRP No.3748 of 2017 to set aside the order dated 20.06.2017 and this Court allowed the said CRP on 29.09.2022.
(ii) Furt
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is intended to clarify any issue or doubt, not for further examination or to place additional evidence. The power should be used sparingly and not....
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
The power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC should be sparingly used in exceptional circumstances and only if there are valid and sufficient reasons for the recall of witnesses. Costs should be imposed t....
The reopening of evidence and recalling of witnesses must not be used to fill gaps in previously recorded testimony, and parties cannot introduce evidence that contradicts their earlier admissions.
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....
The court emphasized that allowing repeated cross-examination without valid reasons would cause hardship to the witnesses and that petitions filed at a belated stage without merits would not be consi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
