A pendente lite purchaser is entitled to cross-examine witnesses to substantiate his case, and the court has the discretion to recall witnesses for clarification.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.07.2013 passed in I.A.No.936 of 2012 in O.S.No.72 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli in I.A.No.936 of 2012 dated 03.07.2013.

2. I.A.No.936 of 2012 in O.S.No.72 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner/16th defendant under Order XVIII, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to recall all the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff for cross-examination of them by the petitioner/16th defendant. The learned Trial Court allowed the said petition. As against the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first respondent/plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are mentioned herein as arrayed in the I.A.No.936 of 2012.

3. At the very outset, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a remanded suit.

4. The first respondent/plaintiff had filed the original suit in O.S.No. 108 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Tiruchirappalli and the same was a suit for partition. The said partition suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, without going into the merits of the case on 05.08.1999 by the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tiruchirappalli. As against the same, the first respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.319 of 1999, on the file of the II Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli on 04.09.2001.

5. The first Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court passed in O.S.No.108 of 1988, remanded the appeal back to the Trial Court, directing to give opportunity to the first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.108 of 1988 to implead all the necessary parties and to proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter the parties were directed to appear before the lower Court on 10.09.2001. The remanded suit was renumbered as O.S.No.72 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli allowed various parties to be impleaded as the defendants.

6. One K.G.Nesan filed a petition, seeking to implead himself as the 16th defendant in I.A.No.628 of 2006 and the same was allowed by the order dated 21.03.2007. Thereafter, the plaint was amended and the said Mr.K.G.Nesan was made the 16th defendant and he filed his written statement on 28.10.2008. After framing issues afresh, the trial of the suit commenced. In the meanwhile, on 10.09.2012, the petitioner/16th defendant had filed I.A.No.936 of 2012 seeking to recall all the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff for cross-examination of them by the petitioner/16th defendant. Since all the oral evidence had taken place before he was impleaded, it has become necessary to cross examine all the plaintiff’s side witnesses after his filing of the written statement. This application was resisted strongly by the plaintiff. However, the said application was allowed.

7. This Civil Revision Petition was filed claiming that the petitioner/16th defendant was a pendente lite purchaser, who purchased the plaint item No.2 of the plaint ‘A’ scheduled property from the second defendant on 13.04.2006 and therefore, he is bound by his vendor's pleadings and evidence and do not have any independent right of cross examination of evidence. It was further contended that the petitioner/16th defendant is a party subsequently impleaded after the order of remand and allowing the said application by the lower Court will lead to miscarriage of justice in as much as the petitioner/16th defendant is being given an opportunity after 17 years o