Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67469
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 14.08.2025 Order pronounced on : 12.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.Nos.3015, 3016, 3017 & 3018 of 2025 & CMP.Nos.16911 & 16913 of 2025 CRP.Nos.3015 & 3016 of 2025:
S.Nanda Kishore ..Petitioner in CRP.Nos.3015 & 3016 of 2025 Vs.
1.Dilip Kumar Jain @ Dilip Jain
2.Jagadeesh Prasad Porewal sued as Power Agent of Dilipkumar Jain @ Dilip Jain ..Respondents in in CRP.Nos.3015 & 3016 of 2025 Prayer in CRP.No.3015 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.06.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam.
Prayer in CRP.No.3016 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 12.06.2025 made in O.S.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam.
CRP.Nos.3017 & 3018 of 2025:
N.K.Raghunathan ..Petitioner in CRP.Nos.3017 & 3018 of 2025 Vs.
1.Dilip Kumar Jain @ Dilip Jain
2.Jagadeesh Prasad Porewal sued as Power Agent of Dilipkumar Jain @ Dilip Jain ..Respondents in in CRP.Nos.3017 & 3018 of 2025 Prayer in CRP.No.3017 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.06.2025 made in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam.
Prayer in CRP.No.3018 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 12.06.2025 made in O.S.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Subramanian in all CRPs For Respondents : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan in all CRPs
The trial court's authority to recast issues and admit additional evidence post-judgment reservation is confirmed, provided it aligns with procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 1 and 5 - Powers of Courts - Recasting of issues before judgment is permissible without notifying the parties; the introduction of additional issues can aid in the resolution of controversies. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(B) Errors in Reopening - The reopening of cases post-closure of evidence must align with provisions of CPC and be justified appropriately by trial courts to prevent prejudice. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The revisions stem from two suits concerning the admissibility of additional documents after trial closure, challenging the Trial Court's powers and procedures regarding issue recasting.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's actions in recasting issues and receiving documents were deemed appropriate and within their jurisdiction.
Issues: The main questions included the authority to reopen a case after judgment reservation and the validity of admitting additional documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that trial courts have the discretion to amend and frame issues and that additional evidence can be permitted if it serves justice without infringing on parties' rights.
Result: All Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
COMMON ORDER
These revisions arise out of two suits in O.S.No.40 2011 and O.S.No.41 of 2011. The 2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in both the suits, permitting reception of additional documents, after trial had concluded.
The said orders in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S.Nos.40 and 41 and 2011, allowing the 2nd defendant to file additional documents on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- is under challenge in two revisions. In the other two revisions, the Trial Court recasting the issues on its own and without hearing the revision petitioner is under challenge in the other two revisions.
2.I have heard Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revisions and Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondents in all the revisions.
3.Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all the revision petitions would first and foremost contend that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in reopening the case, after having reserved the judgment and has recast issues, without jurisdiction and also without power to do so, once the evidence has been let in on specific issues framed already. The learned counsel would further state that the suit was filed in the year 2011 and after prolonged trial, the evidence was closed on 15.04.2025 and both the plaintiff and the defendants have argued the matter and judgment was reserved as well. However, the Trial Court has suo motu reopened the case and recast the issues and thereby, permitted the defendants to let in further evidence, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of CPC .
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the Trial Court also erred in allowing I.A.No.3 of 2025 and after reopening the matter, has admitted additional documents to be marked as exhibits. He would contend that the case of the 2nd defendant in the suit is that the power of attorney has been cancelled and the sale agreement executed by the power agent was not valid, whereas the fact remains that the cancellation of power of attorney dated 30.03.2011, was after execution of the sale agreement on 25.02.2011 and therefore, there was no necessity to even receive the additional documents on the side of the 2nd defendant. He would also state that under the guise of recasting issues, the learned Trial Judge only changed the words and eventually has not altered any of the issues that were already framed. He would therefore pray for the revisions being allowed.
5.Per contra, Mr.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondents in all the revision petitions would state that pursuant to reopening of the case, D.W.1 has already been recalled and he has marked the documents as well. He would further state that no prejudice has been caused to the revision petitioner and the documents that have been marked are only registered sale deeds and the power of attorney executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant and cancellation of the power of attorney deed in original dated 30.03.2011. The application to file these documents, though was objected to, the trial Court rightly allowed the same and therefore, the learned counsel would state that the orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.3 of 2025 do not deserve any interference. He would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in J.K.Abdul Jabbar Rowther Vs. VJ.Mani Raj and others , reported in 1993 2 L.W 198 and K.N.Palaniswamy Gounder Vs. P.Subramanian , reported in 2005 1 L.W 622 . Relying on the said decisions, it is contended by Mr.Govi Ganesan that the Trial Court has not committed any error in recasting the issues and there is no violation of provisions of CPC in this regard.
6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
7.The issues originally framed in the O.S.No.40 of 2011 are as follows:
1.Whether the plaintiff and 1st defendant has colluded among them and
