The court emphasized the necessity of cross-examination in civil proceedings for upholding the defendants' rights.

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ravindran for first respondent and Mr.R.Ganesan for eighth respondent.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the common order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif at Tirumangalam in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2026 in O.S.No.243 of 2008 dated 20.01.2026. The defendants 1 and 12 are the civil revision petitioners.

3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 09.03.2005. The suit was taken on file by the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam and numbered as O.S.No.243 of 2008. Summons were served on the defendants. The defendants have also filed their written statement. Pending the litigation, the first defendant is said to have alienated the property in favour of the second defendant and subsequently to a third party, one Gowtham. The said Gowtham has been impleaded as the 12^th defendant in the suit. These are the bare essentials necessary for disposal of the revision.

4. The suit was posted for trial. P.W.1 entered the witness box on

06.11.2025 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. He sought further time to mark documents. The matter was adjourned to 11.11.2025. On that day, the evidence of P.W.1 in chief was closed and the matter was listed for cross- examination on 19.11.2025. On 19.11.2025, the plaintiff was not ready for cross-examination. A request was made for adjournment for the appearance of P.W.1. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 24.11.2025. On 24.11.2025 too, P.W.1 was absent. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 26.11.2025. On 26.11.2025, P.W.1 was present, but the defendants were absent. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 was closed.

5. The defendants 1 and 12 filed applications under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to re-open and recall P.W.1. The matter was adjourned from 10.12.2025 to 08.01.2026. On 08.01.2026, the matter was again adjourned to 20.01.2026. On 20.01.2026, the applications filed to re-open and recall P.W.1 came to be dismissed.

Challenging the same, the present revision.

6. The learned Judge had dismissed the applications on the ground that the matter had been listed for cross-examination of P.W.1 on 11.11.2025, 19.11.2025, 24.11.2025 and 26.11.2025, as the defendants had not cross-examined P.W.1 on those dates, he felt there was no necessity to entertain the applications to re-open and recall P.W.1. He took note of the fact that the suit was pending from 2008 and grant of further time would cause prejudice to the parties.

7. Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh took me through the 'B' Diary and urged that the defendants had sought time only once, i.e., on 26.11.2025 and hence, placing the blame on the defendants for the adjournments on 11.11.2025, 19.11.2025 and 24.11.2025 is unfair and improper. He further states that P.W.1, who has marked Ex.A1 agreement, is an essential witness and hence, the defendants ought to be permitted to cross-examine him. 8. Per contra, Mr.S.Ravindran appearing for the contesting respondent/plaintiff urges that the suit has been pending from the year 2008. He states that the plaintiff has been knocking on the doors seeking justice for more than 17 years and still, he is yet to see the end of litigation.

He pleads that the Court was constrained to close the evidence as the defendants did not co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal. He left it to the discretion of this Court to pass appropriate orders.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.

10. I have to agree with Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh that