Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.

ORDER :

K.Sarath, J.

1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are preferred against the Common Order dated 18.10.2024 in I.A.No.304 and 305 of 2024 in COS No.15 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Order XVIII, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) respectively, to reopen the evidence and recall of the PW-1 for further cross-examination, were dismissed.

2. Heard Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Counsel, representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit in COS No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar against the petitioners/defendants for recovery of money. After closing the evidence of both the sides in the said suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2024 for reopening of the evidence and recalling of the PW1 for further cross-examination on the aspect of purchase of materials, which were used in SVP National Police Academy, were not as per the work order dated 06.10.2012.

5. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said petitions by filing counters and contended that the Interlocutory Applications were filed after examination of the DWs.1 to 5 and in order to stop the legal payments to the respondent and the petitioners have already extensively cross-examined the PW1 on all aspects. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court dismissed both the applications. Being aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Trial court ought to have allowed the applications since there was no cross-examination of the PW1 on the aspect of purchase of materials as per work order dated 06.10.2012 and the cross- examination of the PW1 was done on 26.06.2023 and 18.07.2023 and the petitions were filed by the petitioners within the reasonable time and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if the evidence of the PW1 is reopened and requested to allow the Civil Revision Petitions.

7. In the impugned order the Trial Court observed that the PW1 was examined in chief by the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff and cross- examined by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants in part on 26.06.2023 and further cross-examined at length on 18.07.2023. Thereafter, the DWs.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the petitioners/defendants on 09.09.2024 and reported no further evidence. After completion of evidence of both the sides Interlocutory Applications were filed without any sufficient reasons.

8. The Trial court further observed that the main purpose of the provision under Order XVIII, Rule-17 of CPC is only to enable the Court to clarify any doubts which may arise with regard to the evidence let in by the parties, but not intended to be examined. The said provision can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the party to the suit, but such power is not intended to be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the evidence which has already been recorded by the Court.

9. In similar circumstances, with regard to recall of the witness for further cross-examination after conclusion of the trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in