Trial court discretion to allow lis pendens purchaser cross-examination upheld under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, subject to costs and timelines.

COMMON O R D E R

These two Civil Revision Petitions challenge the order and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Mudukulathur, in I.A. No. 8 of 2025 and I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S. No. 24 of 2016, dated

03.12.2025.

2. The plaintiff is the Civil Revision Petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. O.S.No.24 of 2016 is a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and a further declaration that the settlement deed dated 12.02.2013 in Document No.173 of 2013 is null and void and for costs. Pending the suit, the 2^nd defendant purchased a portion of the property and was impleaded as a party in I.A.No.219 of 2019, dated

16.12.2019. The 2^nd defendant has also filed his written statement.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the suit was taken up for trial. By the time the 2^nd defendant was impleaded, the suit had progressed far beyond the stage of the plaintiff's evidence and it was at the stage of cross examination of D.W.1.

5. The 2^nd defendant filed applications seeking to reopen and recall P.W.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross examination by his Counsel. The learned Judge received these applications in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2025. He received a counter from the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff pleaded that the power agent of the 1^st defendant was 2^nd defendant's brother-in-law and thus, the 2^nd defendant was aware of the pendency of the suit. Despite the same, he had purchased 32 cents of the suit property pending the lis. She further pointed out that the 1^st defendant had deposed in evidence that he had alienated the property in favor of the 2^nd defendant pending litigation, without receiving any consideration. The plaintiff further alleged that defendants 1 and 2 are colluding with each other and that, as a direction had been given by this Court on 26.06.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.8921 of 2016, to dispose of the suit within a period of six months, this was an attempt to prolong the litigation. Thus, she sought dismissal of the applications.

7. The learned Trial Judge considered the affidavit and counter and marked two documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. She was of the opinion that, though the 2^nd defendant is a lis pendens purchaser, in case, he is not permitted to cross examine P.W.1 and 2, it would result in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is on revision.

8. Heard Mr.K.C.Ramalingam for the Civil Revision Petitioner and Mr.K.R.Laxman, for the contesting respondents.

9. It is not in dispute that the 2^nd defendant is a lis pendens purchaser. He cannot take a plea better than that taken by the 1^st defendant. He was impleaded during the course of cross examination of D.W.1. In other words, he had no opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Trial Judge has felt that, in the interests of justice, an opportunity be granted to the 2^nd defendant to cross examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Trial Judge, who had the benefit of observing the parties during the course of trial, exercised her discretion and allowed the applications.

10. The scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though wide, is to be exercised only where the discretion had been exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner. It is not meant to interfere with routine errors committed by the Trial Court. [See, Estralla Rubber v Dass Estate (P) Limited, (2001) 8 SCC 97]. I am not of the view that the impugned order is erroneous. This is the first difficulty faced by Mr.Ramalingam in this revision. Thus, exercise of discretion by the Trial Court is no