IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and CMP.No.3000 of 2024 A.Devarajan ... Petitioner in both CRPs /Defendant Vs S.Loganathan ... Respondent in both CRPs / Plaintiff Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.297 of 2018 & I.A.No.6 of

2023 in O.S.No.297 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Court, Paramathy.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivek (in both CRPs)

For Respondent : Mr.P.Navaneetha Krishnan (in both CRPs)

COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the order dated

02.01.2024 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Paramathy, dismissing the applications in I.A.No.7 of 2023 and I.A.No.6 of 2023 in O.S.No.297 of

2018 filed by the petitioner/defendant seeking to re-open the case and to recall P.W.1 to P.W.3.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking recovery of money based on a promissory note. When the matter was posted for evidence of D.W's, the instant applications have been filed by the defendant seeking to re-open the plaintiff's side witness and to recall P.W.1 to P.W.3. The said applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that he stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by one Tamilarasan in Selvalakshmi Finance and there was no direct financial transactions between the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff. In order to prove the said defence, the defendant wants to recall plaintiff side witnesses and further cross-examine them. Hence, the present applications. The trial Court without appreciating the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement, has erroneously dismissed the said applications.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, for recalling the witnesses cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of filling up any lacunae or omission on the part of the defendant. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernek (Dead) through Lrs. Vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 403

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application to recall P.W.1 to P.W.3, it was stated by the petitioner that some important questions have not been posed to P.Ws when they were cross-examined and therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to recall P.Ws for further cross-examination. In the affidavit filed in support of these I.As, the petitioner has not given any specific reasons or the purpose for recalling the witnesses. However, at the time of argument, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to establish the defence raised in the written statement, the P.Ws have to be recalled. The specific defence raised by the petitioner in the written statement was available even when PWs were cross-examined earlier. However, due to some reason or the other, the petitioner failed to put necessary questions to the plaintiff side witnesses during cross-examination. Therefore, the present attempt by the petitioner is obviously to fill up the lacunae in the cross-examination. This Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernek (Dead) through Lrs. Vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate case cited supra, has clearly explained the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17. The Apex Court has observed as follows :

“16. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule

17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties to recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions