Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
M/s. Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K.P. Jayaram S/o Late Krishna Pillai – Respondent
O.S.A. Nos. 162, 164 of 2023, C.M.P. Nos. 164, 20420 of 2023
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Recasting - Original Side Appeals - CPC Section 14 - The court interpreted the recasting of issues under the CPC, emphasizing that it does not shift the burden of proof but may affect the onus, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision to deny reopening evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for ownership and validity of a sale deed concerning a property. After issues were framed, defendants sought to recast issues and reopen evidence, which was denied by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that recasting issues did not materially affect the trial, as the burden of proof remained with the plaintiffs, and the onus may shift but does not alter the fundamental nature of the case.
Issues: Whether the suit is barred by limitation and whether the sale deed is valid and supported by consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that recasting issues does not shift the burden of proof, which remains on the plaintiffs, and the applications to reopen evidence were rightly dismissed.
Result: The appeals and civil miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. SUNDAR, J.
1. This common order will now dispose of the captioned two 'Original Side Appeals' [hereinafter 'OSAs' for the sake of brevity] and captioned two 'Civil Miscellaneous Petitions' [hereinafter 'CMPs' for the sake of brevity] thereat.
2. Captioned matters are short matters and therefore a thumbnail sketch of facts will suffice.
3. A suit in 'C.S. No. 66 of 2013' [hereinafter 'said suit' for the sake of brevity] was filed on the Original Side of this Court vide a plaint dated 28.01.2013; that in the said suit, there are two plaintiffs, who are spouses and three defendants; that first defendant is a Company i.e., a juristic person, D2 and D3 are spouses and natural persons; that said suit has been filed with prayers for declaration that second plaintiff is the absolute owner of a 'house property at Door No. 33, 2nd Street, Gill Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094' [hereinafter 'suit property' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity], another declaration that a sale deed dated 06.07.2007 [registered as document No. 2558 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Registrar's Office, Kodambakkam] in favour of D1 is null and void and a permanent injunction qua alienation as regards suit property; that usual prayer limb qua costs and standard residuary limb also form part of said suit prayer; that in said suit, three defendants entered appearance and filed written statement; that post completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 20.08.2014 [six issues were framed]; that trial commenced and first plaintiff (K.P. Jayaraman) deposed as PW1; that the cross-examination of PW1 which was done on as many as five days concluded on 08.01.2018; that it is to be noted that cross-examination of PW1 (first plaintiff) was on 08.12.2017, 12.12.2017, 19.12.2017, 05.01.2018 and 08.01.2018; that we are informed that thereafter further witnesses were examined; that thereafter, four years later i.e., in November of 2022, defendants filed an application in A. No. 5459 of 2022 under Order XIV Rule 5 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)' [hereinafter 'CPC' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] with a prayer for recasting six issues which were framed on 20.08.2014; that this request for recasting was acceded to and issues 1 and 2 were recast on 15.12.2022; that thereafter, in May of 2023, the three defendants took out two applications with prayers for reopening plaintiffs' side evidence and recalling PW1; that these two applications are A.Nos.2831 and 2832 of 2023; that these two applications came to be dismissed (after full contest) by a Hon'ble single Judge in and by a 'common order dated 25.07.2023' [hereinafter 'impugned common order' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity]; that assailing the impugned common order, three defendants, who are unsuccessful in having the plaintiffs' side evidence reopened and in getting PW1 recalled are in intra-court appeals vide captioned two OSAs.
4. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to write that thumbnail sketch of facts supra would demonstrate that two issues were recast on 15.12.2022 and they are issue Nos.1 and 2. For the sake of specificity, we deem it appropriate to set out issue Nos.1 and 2 (as framed on 20.08.2014) and the same read as follows:
(ii) Whether the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 registered as document No. 2558/2007 is valid and supported by consideration as mentioned in the sale deed?
5. Aforementioned two issues as recast on 15.12.2022 read as follows:
(ii) Whether the sale deed dated 06.07.2007 registered as document No. 2558/2007 is not valid and is not supported by consideration as mentioned in the sale deed?
6. Reverting to appeals at hand i.e., captioned OSAs, Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel on record for three appellants and Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan, learned counsel on record for two respondents are before
Recasting issues in a trial does not shift the burden of proof but may affect the onus, which remains a critical aspect of the judicial process.
The court ruled that a plaint must disclose a cause of action to proceed, and dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 is only appropriate when the plaint clearly fails to do so.
Limitations on property claims based on prior registered deeds involve mixed questions of law and fact, warranting detailed examination rather than dismissal.
The court emphasized the necessity of framing appropriate issues under the CPC to ensure a fair trial in cases of specific performance and possession claims.
The lower appellate court's order of remand was found to be justified and sustainable in law, and the proposed amendment was found to be well within the period of limitation and pecuniary jurisdictio....
It is settled law that while considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., defence is immaterial and Court has to only look into averments of plaint and application cannot be dec....
The court held that if a plaint shows no valid cause of action and is barred by limitation, it should be rejected to prevent misuse of legal process.
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
