The court underscored the procedural necessity for reopening evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure fairness in adjudicating financial disputes.

JUDGMENT

Exts.P7 and P8, orders dated 17.11.2012 on I.A.Nos.1839 of 2012 and

1837 of 2012, respectively in O.S.No.154 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara are under challenge in this original petition at the instance of petitioner/defendant

2. Respondent filed O.S.No.154 of 2008 for recovery of `4,00,000/-

(allegedly) borrowed by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that for discharge of that liability, petitioner issued the cheque.

3. Petitioner denied that he had any such transaction but contended that he had borrowed `25,000/- from the respondent and that amount was paid to the petitioner through cheque drawn on the account of the respondent with State Bank of Travancore. He alleged that though `10,000/- was paid to the respondent, no receipt was issued. In connection with an agreement, respondent had obtained two signed blank cheques from the petitioner, one of which was misused, it is contended by the petitioner.

4. After the evidence was closed, petitioner filed Ext.P3, I.A.No.1839 of 2012 to re-open the case for further evidence and Ext.P4, I.A.No.1837 of 2012 to direct the respondent produce details of his account numbers with the State Bank of Travancore, Nooranadu Branch. Those applications were resisted by the respondent and dismissed by the learned Sub Judge as per Exts.P7 and P8, orders.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in the light of the defence petitioner has taken in the written statement about borrowal of `25,000/- from the respondent and that amount being given to the petitioner through cheque, it is necessary to check account of the respondent with the bank concerned. DW3, manager of the bank was not able to give proper evidence regarding the transaction since he was not given the account number of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that though other reliefs are also prayed for in Ext.P4, application, the only request now being made is to direct the respondent give account number of the cheque for `25,000/- issued to the petitioner in the year, 2008.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the stage of filing Exts.P3 and P4, applications is over and in view of Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”), the request was rightly rejected by the learned Sub Judge.

7. Rule 1 of Order XI of Code states that in any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the court may deliver interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer. In Ext.P4, application - I.A.No.1837 of 2012 petitioner wanted the respondent to state various matters and produce certain documents.

8. On going through Ext.P4, application I find that all matters except either production of cheque for `25,000/- (of the year, 2008) drawn on the account of State Bank of Travancore, Nooranadu Branch or furnishing its account number are not relevant for a decision and are not pursued by the learned counsel for petitioner.

9. So far as cheque for `25,000/- of the year, 2008 issued to the petitioner is concerned, respondent also is not disputing issuance of cheque though according to him it was not in connection with the transaction pleaded in the plaint. That is a matter which the trial court has to decide after evidence is recorded.

10. Having regard to the contentions raised, I do not find reason why information regarding the cheque for `25,000/- (of the year, 2008) shall not be given by the respondent. In the view of that, I am inclined to allow Ext.P4, application to the above extent. Hence Ext.P3, application is liable to be allowed so as to re-open the evidence.

Resultantly the original petition is allowed in part as under:

i. Exts.P7 and P8, orders on I.A.Nos.1839 and 1837 of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara are set aside and Exts.P3 and P4, applicati