Madras High Court
The Manager vs G.Elumalai on 19 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.140 and 141 of 2021
The Manager,
M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd
Technical Centre, Vellivoyalchavadi,
Manali New Town,
Ponneri Taluk,
Chennai 600 103. ... Petitioner
Vs.
G.Elumalai ... Respondent
Prayer: Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the fair and decretal order dated 02.12.2020 passed by
District Munsif, Ponneri, dismissing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 in
O.S.No.7 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.Velmurugan
for M/s.R and P. Partners
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopinath
COMMON ORDER
The defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2016 is the revision petitioner
herein. The suit in O.S.No.7 of 2016 had proceeded with the recording
of evidence, wherein P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and cross
examined and the examination of D.W1 is also over. After his cross
examination, the suit is now posted for the examination of D.W.2. It
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
must be mentioned that the said suit had been filed by the plaintiff,
seeking a judgment and decree to declare the plaintiff as the absolute
owner of the suit property and for a further direction to direct the
defendant to hand over possession of the vacant site of the property
after removing the superstructure, if any, in the suit property, and also
for costs of the suit. At the stage when further evidence for the
defendant had to be adduced, the defendant had filed interlocutory
applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 seeking permission to reopen
the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and to recall P.W.1 for further
cross-examination. That application had been filed under Order XVIII
Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The learned District Munsif, Ponneri, held that the said
provision would apply only if the Presiding Officer of the court wanted
some clarification and therefore, it is not open to either one of the two
parties to resort to such a provision. It was also observed by learned
District Munsif that the applications appear to have been filed with
intention to drag on the proceedings, particularly when the oral
evidence on the side of the plaintiff had already been completed by
examination and cross-examination. Thus, there was no necessity for
__________
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
recalling P.W.1 once again.
3. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and also for the
respondent.
4. Mr.Gopinathan, learned counsel for the respondent pointed
out the futility in re-examining P.W1 and questioning him, particularly
because, further cross-examination would, as was stated during the
course of earlier cross examination, be to find out whether the suit
property was part of the lay out land or not and therefore stated that
it was an issue beyond the scope of the suit and therefore, the learned
counsel states that such cross-examination would not be required and
would not serve any purpose at all.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner stated that there was no need to drag on the
proceedings. Only a few questions, with reference to whether
permission was obtained or not, in addition to the land for the lay out,
have to be put to P.W.1. The learned counsel also stated that no new
document would be introduced during the cross examination. The
__________
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
learned counsel further stated that if the court fixes any particular
date, the cross examination will be conducted only on that particular
date and there was no intention of dragging on the matter.
6. Having heard the counsels, since the trial Court has to
determine the facts, some latitude has to be given during the course
of the cross examination of witnesses during the pendency of the suit.
Even during the recording of evidence, the Trial Court may recall
witnesses, if in its opinion such recalling of witnesses is necessary for
proper assessment of the documents that have been filed by either of
the two parties. If evidence had been obtained during the pendency of
the suit, the Trial Court can permit further cross examination of P.W.1.
The learned District Munsif, Ponneri, may also give permission for re-
examination of the witness.
7. If, in the opinion of the District Munsif, Ponneri, the cross-
examination sought for is not relevant to decide the issue in the suit,
then such cross examination may be rejected while analysing
evidence. Thereafter, the defendant may be called upon to lead
evidence. The District Munsif, Ponneri, may endeavour to dispose of
__________
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the suit on or before 31.08.2021 by proceeding with the trial on a day-
to-day basis, if needed, giving an adjournment of three working days
in between any two adjournments and let not more than two
adjournments be granted for the very same reason. The Trial Court
shall proceed with the matter and complete the trial as indicated
above.
8. With the said observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed
and there will be no order as to costs. Let the cross examination not
traverse beyond the scope of finding out whether the property is within
the approved lay out or not. Connected miscellaneous application is
closed.
19.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
mrn
To
The District Munsif, Ponneri
__________
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
(mrn)
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.140
and 141 of 2021
19.07.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
