A trial court may allow reopening of evidence under exceptional circumstances when it does not prejudice the other party and promotes a fair trial.

ORDER

The petitioner impugns the order of the learned Additional Munsiff, Kollam in I.A.No.5/2023 in O.S.No.517/2015, whereby, his application to reopen his own evidence as PW1, so as to produce and mark certain additional documents, has been rejected on the ground that there is no valid explanation offered by him as to why the said documents, which were in his own possession, had not been produced; and also for the additional reason that this would lead to protraction of the trial.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner –

Sri.Vishnudas H., submitted that his client has explained cogently before the Trial Court that the documents sought to be marked had not been produced in evidence earlier because, at the time when the suit was filed, his client was a minor, represented by his father; and hence, he being unaware that such documents are necessary for proper resolution of the dispute between the parties. He added that, in any event, since PW1 has been examined only recently, the reopening of his evidence, to produce and mark the additional documents would cause no prejudice to the respondent, particularly when the question of maintainability and admissibility are issues that have to be decided by the Trial Court appropriately.

3. Sri.Govind Padmanabhan - learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that the impugned order of the learned Munsiff is irreproachable because, it has considered all relevant aspects properly, especially under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). He asserted that, as correctly found by the said Court, the afore provision is not to be used in a routine manner, but only in exceptional circumstances; and that, since there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to why the documents in question were not produced at the relevant time, his evidence as PW1 could not have been allowed to be reopened. He thus prayed that this CRP be dismissed.

4. I have considered and evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of various documents on record and the impugned order.

5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Trial Court has refused to reopen the evidence of PW1 for the reason that the documents now sought to be marked were in his own possession and there was no explanation as to why he did not produce it within time. The Court has also then said that reopening the evidence of PW1 would lead to protraction of trial.

6. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore findings of the learned Trial Court because, when it is without doubt that the trial has not been closed and that the evidence of PW1 has just been completed, there would be no prejudice even to the respondent, in the evidence being reopened and the documents allowed to be marked in evidence subject to law. This is more so because, even if the documents are marked, its admissibility and probative value are to be decided by the Trial Court appropriately; for which the respondent will obtain necessary rights as the trial progresses, or before the suit is disposed of.

7. Of course, there are, prima facie, observations, which the Trial Court ought to have kept in mind.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this CRP and set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Munsiff, Kollam, and direct him to reconsider I.A.No.5/2023 in O.S.No.517/2015 in its proper perspective, after rehearing both sides; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, even if the court is to find that the evidence of PW1 is to be reopened, then same shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible without any avoidable delay, so that the suit itself can be finally disposed of within strict time frames.