BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 25.07.2023 Delivered on 17.11.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.R.P.(MD) Nos.458 & 459 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2185 of 2023 P.Rajasekar ... Petitioner in both C.R.Ps.

Vs.

P.Subramanian ... Respondent in both C.R.Ps.

Common Prayer:- These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated 02.02.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Thuraiyur.

For Petitioner in both C.R.Ps. : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan For Respondent in both C.R.Ps. : No appearance

C O M M O N O R D E R

By this common order, both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of.

2. Both these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner as against the impugned orders dated 02.02.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of

2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Thuraiyur.

3. The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.55 of

2016. The said suit in O.S.No.55 of 2016 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition. After the evidence on the side of the respondent/plaintiff was closed, the petitioner/second defendant filed I.A.Nos.10 & 11 of 2022 to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and recall P.W.1 for further cross examination with regard to the entries in Accounts Books maintained by the deceased first defendant, namely the father of the parties. The said I.As. were dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned orders dated 02.02.2023.

Aggrieved by this, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/second defendant would submit that the suit for partition was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the father of the petitioner/second defendant. The Trial Court erred in dismissing the I.As. on the ground that the I.As. have been filed belatedly. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that in the year 2020 itself, the evidence of P.W.1 was completed and after completion of evidence, the suit is posted for arguments. At this stage, such an application cannot be entertained. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications which calls for no interference.

6. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

7. The petitioner/second defendant filed the applications in I.A.Nos.10 &

11 of 2022 to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W. 1 for cross examination with regard to the entries in Accounts Books maintained by the father of the petitioner/second defendant and the respondent/plaintiff.

8. It is now well settled law that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit. Such a power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacuna in the evidence of the witness, but to clear an ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination.

9. However, rigorous power under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not affect the inherent power of the Court to pass required order to meet the ends of justice. To reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination or cross examination or even for production of fresh evidence, this power can be exercised at any stage of the suit even after closure of evidence.

10. The power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence or to recall the witness for further examination. Even if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party come across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence with rega