Table of Content
1. filing of civil revision petition under article 227 (Para 1)
2. trial court applications under order xviii rule 17 cpc for reopening and recall (Para 2)
3. petitioner's contention regarding inadequate opportunity for cross-examination (Para 3)
4. respondent's contention in support of trial court's order (Para 4)
5. court's allowing revision petitions based on procedural fairness (Para 5)

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the impugned common order passed in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of

2025 in C.O.S.No.62 of 20243 by the learned Principal Commercial Courts, Egmore, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/defendant had preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

2.Before the trial court, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Sec.151 of C.P.C. seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. On hearing both sides, the said applications were dismissed by the trial judge holding that already sufficient opportunity was given to him cross-examine P.W.1 and detailed cross-examination was also made. Therefore, the subsequent reopening of the case would not arise. Furthermore, the scope of constitution of Commercial Court was to ensure speedy justice and the trial has to be concluded within six months as per the management schedule. So, the trial Court was not inclined to reopen the case, accordingly, both the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved over that findings, the revision petitioner preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

3.The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that already he was permitted to cross-examine P.W.1 from 9^th to 11^th of September 2025. As per the schedule, on 11.09.2025, he has to make further cross-examination of P.W.1, for which he sought permission of the court, but the defendant was not present. Inspite of that, the evidence was closed. Since he has not committed any default on his side in the cooperation of trial proceedings, he filed the applications to reopen and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, but he was not granted permission. Hence, he prayed to grant one more opportunity for him and to set aside the findings of trial court.

4.The learned counsel for respondent raised objections that as per the Commercial Court Act, the proceedings are summary in nature, but only to drag on the proceedings, the revision petitioner/defendant had filed the said applications and the same were rightly dismissed by the trial judge, which requires no interference. He has also pointed out that he is not having valid defence and also submitted that the revision petitioner/defendant had extensively cross-examined P.W.1, but without assigning any reason, he came forward with the said applications and that was rightly dismissed by the trial judge, which requires no interference. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that after perusal of applications for reopening and recalling the evidence of P.W.1, to commence the trial, the trial judge had fixed the schedule for examination of plaintiff witnesses on the following dates :-

Witness Name and Rank	Agreed date(s) for evidence
Mrs.Asra Ashick (PW1)	Chief : 7th or 8th of August 2025 Cross : 9th - 11th of September 2025
Mr.T.C.Sundaravadivel (PW2)	Chief : 22nd - 26th of September 2025 Cross : 13th - 17th of September 2025

As per the above schedule, to cross-examine the P.W.1, time was granted to the defendant on 9^th to 11^th September 2025 and 9^th and 10^th of September 2025, P.w.1 was cross-examined by the defendant. Subsequently, the case was posted on 11.09.2025. According to the revision petitioner, on that day, P.W.1 was not present, but without considering the same, the trial court has not given opportunity to cross-examine, still he is having further cross-examination. The learned counsel would also submit that in the morning itself, he represents that they are not ready. Therefore, the trial cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document