Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1665
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Leela Devi (Died) S. Madhu – Petitioner
Versus
Ramaraj Raja – Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) No. 977 of 2023, C.M.P. (MD) No. 4468 of 2023
Decided On : 01-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V. Meenakshisundaram.
For the Respondent: T. Selvan.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that delays in civil proceedings do not necessarily bar the reopening of evidence if it serves the interests of justice.
Headnote:
Reopening - Civil Procedure - Article 227 - The court discussed the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the discretion to allow reopening of evidence in light of the specific circumstances of the case, despite delays.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking to reopen evidence to examine a watchman after both parties had closed their evidence. The trial court dismissed the application citing delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the plaintiff's slackness but decided to allow reopening of evidence to examine the watchman, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present the case.
Issues: Whether the delay in seeking to reopen evidence would disentitle the plaintiff from examining a witness crucial to proving possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while delays are concerning, they do not automatically preclude the reopening of evidence, especially when the evidence is relevant to the case.
Result: The order of the trial court was set aside, allowing the plaintiff to reopen evidence with conditions.
ORDER :
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 08.02.2023 in I.A. No. 5 of 2023 in O.S. No. 47 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, in I.A. No. 5 of 2023 in O.S. No. 47 of 2013.
2. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. Both side evidence was over. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 20.06.2022 and the defendant's evidence was closed on 04.11.2022 and the matter was listed for arguments on 14.11.2022 and thereafter for the second time on 24.11.2022. On 24.11.2022, the present I.A. No. 5 of 2023 was filed to reopen the plaintiff side evidence. The reason mentioned in the application is that the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is enjoying the property by putting up fence and also by employing a watchman. The defendant has denied the same in the written statement and DW-1 also in his box has denied the possession of the plaintiff. Eventhough the plaintiff has produced relevant document to prove his possession, only to corroborate the same and further buttress his case he is now seeking to examine the watchman who was employed by the plaintiff.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only on the ground of delay and that the application has been filed in the routine manner, the petition is dismissed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the suit itself was filed in the year 2013. The case of the parties are very clear from their respective plaint and the written statement. Therefore, the plaintiff should have let in whatever evidence he wants when the chance was given to him. He cannot be permitted to now let in evidence to fill up the lacuna after the defendant side is examined. He would also further submit that when almost 10 years are over, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application for reopening the case. According to him, the fact of possession is to be proved by letting in appropriate documents and when the land in question is an agriculture land and the very plea of the plaintiff that he is seeking to prove his possession by examining the watchman itself, is unsustainable.
5. I have considered the submission made by either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. Though prima facie I agree with the view of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the possession in respect of the agricultural land has to be proved in the manner known to law still as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, to further buttress or to corroborate, examining the alleged watchman may not be out of place and cannot be termed as irrelevant at the threshold. The only question to be considered therefore, is that whether the delay would disentitle the plaintiff. It is true that there is slackness on the part of the plaintiff in not examining the witness when his turn came and trying to examine him only at the stage of arguments. For that slackness on the part of the plaintiff, the defendants can be compensated by way of cost.
7. Let the plaintiff pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- on or before 12.07.2024 to the defendant. As far as the merits of the matter is concerned, though routinely it cannot be entertained, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, when the case of the parties is specific relating to fencing and appointment of watchman, I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff. In order to avoid further protracting, this Court can fix proper schedules for the same.
8. Therefore, this Civil Revision on the following terms:
(i) On or before 12.07.2024, the plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the defendant side either by
