Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
K.Goutham Kumar Sole Proprietor, Brand Equities – Appellant
Versus
V. Baskaran – Respondent
CRP Nos.1399 & 1400 of 2026|CMP.No.6806 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Balamanikandan
Trial courts may allow reopening evidence and recalling witness post-closure to enable vital questioning, if opportunity aids case proof.
Headnote:First Paragraph: The suit sought permanent injunction against interference without due process. Trial court allowed defendants' applications under relevant procedural provisions to reopen plaintiff's evidence and recall PW.1 post-closure of evidence and partial arguments. Court found allowance proper to enable defendants' case presentation. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as whether reopening evidence and recalling witness permissible after evidence closure and plaintiff arguments. Ratio: Opportunity must be given to defendants for vital questions, no prejudice shown to plaintiff given prior extensive cross-examination. Third Paragraph:
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to trial court order allowing evidence reopening. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned Order passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2026 in O.S.No.450 of 2025 dated 19.02.2026, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the plaintiff.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering and disturbing with the plaintiff without due process of law. Pending suit, the defendants filed applications to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination. Considering the submissions on either side, the trial Court had allowed the applications. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial without considering the fact that P.W.1 was elaborately cross examined on two occasions and after the evidence on the both sides has been closed and after completion of arguments on the side of the plaintiff, allowed the applications filed to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and recall P.W.1 for further cross examination, which has to be set aside.
Admittedly, in the suit evidence on both sides has been completed and plaintiff's arguments was heard and when the matter was posted for defendant's side arguments, the defendants have filed applications to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination. The contention of the defendants is that since some vital questions have to be put forth to P.W.1, they sought to reopen evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination. The trial Court in order to give an opportunity to the defendants to prove their case had allowed the applications and the same requires no interference.
