High Court dismissed civil revision petitions filed by a defendant challenging the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff to reopen the case and recall a witness for comprehensive cross-examination after a promised settlement failed.
Civil Revision Petitions CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015 stand dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
P.G.Khemani
... Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs.
Jaswanth Munoth ... Respondent in both CRPs
Prayer in CRP(PD) No.2551 of 2015 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the orders passed on 26.02.2015 in I.A.No.2060 of 2015 in O.S.No.9514 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
Prayer in CRP(PD) No.2552 of 2015 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the orders passed on 26.02.2015 by allowing the re-call petition in I.A.No.2810 of 2015 in O.S.No.9514 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
1/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
In all CRPs
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sundaram For Respondent : Mr.C.A.Diwakar
COMMON ORDER
Aggrieved by the order allowing the petitions to reopen the case
and to recall DW1 for further cross examination, the petitioner/defendant has come up with these revision petitions.
on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the petitioner seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) towards damages and compensation for alleged act of defamation committed by him. The suit was taken up for trial and the respondent/plaintiff closed their evidence and thereafter, the petitioner/ defendant filed the proof affidavit of his witness DW1 on 05.02.2015. He was cross examined on the same day and the suit
was posted for pronouncing judgment on 09.02.2015. The Respondent has filed the applications to reopen and recall the evidence of DW1 on the very next day stating that there are various issues raised in the written statement
2/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
and DW1 has to be necessarily cross examined in all aspects.
3/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
by filing these applications, the respondent/plaintiff is trying to drag on the proceedings and these petitions are filed after the matter is reserved for orders, hence the same is not maintainable.
affidavit of DW1 was filed on 05.02.2015 and the Junior counsel of the respondent was compelled to cross examine DW1 on the promise that the matter could be settled. The various issues raised by the petitioner/defendant in his written statement has to be tested in cross examination by respondent/plaintiff and hence opportunity shall be given to the respondent to reopen and recall the evidence of DW1.
4/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
posted for judgement on 09.02.2015. These petitions to reopen and recall the evidence of DW1 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the very next day namely 06.02.2015 by stating that the junior counsel was compelled to cross examine DW1 formally on the promise that the matter could be settled. Hence cross examination was not done covering various issues raised by the defendant in his written statement. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court came to the conclusion that an opportunity shall be given to the respondent/plaintiff to cross examine DW1. The Court below also put the respondent herein on terms by directing him to pay a cost of rupees five hundred in each petition to the Legal Services Authority.
5/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
the case on hand, the trial Court which had the first hand knowledge of the sequence of events that took place on 05.02.2015, had decided to give an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to reopen the case and recall DW1 for further cross examination. By giving such an opportunity no prejudice will be caused to the defendant/petitioner herein. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of any merit.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2022
Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ham To
The III Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
6/7
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015
ham
CRP(PD).Nos.2551 & 2552 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
06.06.2022
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality or irregularity in allowing the respondent to reopen the case and recall a witness for further cross-examination beyond the promised settlement.
Whether granting the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on all issues in the written statement would cause prejudice to the petitioner.
P.G.Khemani
Jaswanth Munoth
S. SOUNTHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
