Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Shanthi – Petitioner
Versus
Sangeetha – Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) No. 2193 of 2023, C.M.P. (MD) No. 11110 of 2023
Decided On : 01-07-2024
Civil Revision - Civil Procedure - Article 227 - The court discussed the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for timely applications in civil proceedings and the discretion of the court to allow belated requests under certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The civil revision petition was filed to challenge the dismissal of an application to recall a witness for further cross-examination at a belated stage in an ongoing suit concerning the validity of certain sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the application was belated, the reasons provided were substantial enough to warrant a reconsideration, allowing the recall of the witness with conditions imposed to ensure timely proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to recall a witness for further cross-examination at a late stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delays in filing applications can be excused if substantial reasons are provided, and the court has the discretion to impose conditions to ensure the expeditious conduct of the trial.
Result: The civil revision petition is allowed with conditions.
ORDER :
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A. No. 14 of 2023 in O.S. No. 18 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Valliyoor, dated 17.07.2023 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor, dated 17.07.2023 made in I.A. No. 14 of 2023 in O.S. No. 18 of 2014.
2. The suit is filed for declaration that the earlier decree in O.S. No. 411 of 2012 as null and void and for declaration of the sale deeds, dated 13.05.2013 & 31.05.2013 as null and void and for declaration of the plaintiff's tile in respect of the schedule property and for costs. The said suit is defended by the defendants by filing a written statement. It is seen that the suit is in the argument stage. At the stage of arguments, the first defendant in the suit has filed the present application in I.A. No. 14 of 2023 to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit is that different version has been given in the criminal complaint arising out of the very same transaction and therefore, the first defendant wants to confront PW1 with such document, which included in the charge sheet filed in the above said criminal case.
3. The trial Court considered the facts and that the suit is of the year 2014 and the application was filed very belatedly at the stage of arguments, dismissed the application. As against the same, this petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when substantial and proper reasons are given in the affidavit for the long delay, the trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the 1st defendant and in the absence thereof, the correct facts cannot be brought forth before the trial Court. The said submission was opposed on behalf of the respondent stating that except to drag on the matter, there is no purpose in the matter and it is very belated stage.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the records.
6. First of all a perusal of the reasons mentioned in the application for recall of PW1 for further cross-examination, specific reasons are given. The only lapse on the part of the petitioner is that the application is filed belatedly. When the facts are relevant to the issue, such delay or lapse can be compensated by imposing costs on the other side.
7. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent can be redressed by ordering specific time schedule for undertaking the entire exercise. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that there will be no further interlocutory application in this matter. The same is also recorded.
8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed on the following terms:
(ii) The cost shall be paid on or before 12.07.2024 either to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff before this Court or to the learned counsel appearing before the trial Court and a memo shall be filed before the trial Court.
(iii) After filing the memo, on the next date of hearing which is scheduled, PW1 shall be present and the defendant shall cross examine the PW1 on the very same day. It is made clear that there will be no further adjournments, for cross-examination.
(iv) It is also submitted that there will be no further interlocutory applications by the petitioner before the trial Court and the same is recorded. The trial Court shall then proceed with the suit and the parties shall argue the matter as expeditiously as possible. The suit shall be completed
Timely applications in civil proceedings are crucial, but delays can be excused if justified, with the court retaining discretion to impose conditions.
Extraordinary circumstances due to Covid-19 warrant a compassionate approach, allowing the setting aside of ex-parte orders in civil proceedings.
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; splitting claims without court permission is impermissible.
A plaintiff's right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute and must respect the rights acquired by the defendants under a decree.
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
