Defendant challenged a trial court order permitting plaintiffs, after trial closure and at judgment stage, to re-open their money-recovery suit to examine a witness to the promissory note, on payment of costs. The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the discretionary order and dismissed the revision.
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.No. 626 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
Civil Revision Petition No. 626 of 2023
and
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4939 of 2023
M.Saravanan …Petitioner versus
1.N. Gowthaman 2.Shabeer Ahmed ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal Order dated December 6, 2022 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in O.S.No. 34 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For RR1&2 : Mr.M.S. Gokulraj For M/s. P.V. Associates
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated
December 6, 2022 passed in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in O.S.No. 34 of 2020 on
the file of the 'Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri', [hereinafter “Trial
Court” for brevity].
2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the
respondents are the plaintiffs in the Original Suit proceedings.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the Suit for recovery of money. He has
further submitted that trial has commenced and both sides' evidence was
closed. When the Suit was posted for Judgment, the respondents/plaintiffs
filed an Interlocutory Application in IA.No.11 of 2022 under Section 151
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to re-open the case to examine
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
one of the witnesses to Suit promissory note. After hearing both sides, the
Trial Court allowed the said Interlocutory Application on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. He has further submitted that after completion of trial, when the matter was posted for Judgment, the respondents/plaintiffs filed this application only with a view to fill up the lacunae in this case. He has
further submitted that the Defendant's case is that the alleged witness sought to be examined by the respondents/plaintiffs is the sole reason for
the Suit. Hence, he has prayed to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has
submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs wanted to examine the Proprietor of R.K.Agency Petrol Bank, namely, Ramakrishnan, who is one of the witnesses in the promissory note. The Trial Court after hearing both sides,
exercised its discretion lawfully. Hence, he has prayed to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition.
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
5. This Court has considered both sides submissions and perused
the materials available on record.
6. Perusal of the records, reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs
filed the Suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of Trial Court for recovery
of money. After completion of trial, when the matter was posted for
Judgment, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 11 of 2022 praying to re-open the case and examine the witness to the Suit promissory note. The
Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and with a view to give one more opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs, allowed
the application on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the Order passed by the Trial Court and there is no merit in this Revision and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
7. Further, this Court was informed that in pursuance of the
Order passed by the Trial Court in the said application, the said witness
was examined in Chief as PW3 by the plaintiffs and that the case is currently posted for Cross examination of the said witness. The Trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant to cross examine the said witness. Both sides are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for speedy disposal of the Suit.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The trial Court shall dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 as early as possible, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 4939 of 2023 is
closed.
11.11.2024
MSM
Speaking Order : Yes/No
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
To
The Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
R. SAKTHIVEL, J
MSM
CRP.No. 626 of 2023
11.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing reopening of evidence to examine a witness to the suit promissory note after trial was completed and the matter was posted for judgment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Saravanan
N. Gowthaman
Shabeer Ahmed
R. Sakthivel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
