Madras High Court
Janarthanam vs S.Gandhi on 11 March, 2021
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
1. Janarthanam
2. Jeya
... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Plaintiffs
(in both CRPs)
vs.
S.Gandhi ... Respondent/
Respondent/Defendant
(in both CRPs)
Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
to set aside the order dated 24.09.2019 made in I.A.Nos.484 and 485 of
2019 in O.S.No.112 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Kovilpatti and to direct the learned trial Court to mark additional
documents as plaintiff's side evidences.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Solaisamy
(in both CRPs)
For Respondent : Mr.M.Veilkaniraju
(in both CRPs)
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions filed by the petitioners are against the
dismissal of two applications in I.A.Nos.484 and 485 of 2019 in O.S.No.
112 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would
state that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.112
of 2011 against the respondent/defendant for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant, men or agents from in any manner disturbing
or interfering with the administration, conduct and management of the
business run by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit property.
Subsequently, the revision petitioners had filed I.A.No.484 of 2019 to
recall the petitioners' witness to prove his case and thereafter, another
I.A.No.485 of 2019 also been filed by the petitioners praying that certain
documents may be received as additional evidence in O.S.No.112 of
2011. The said applications were dismissed. Aggrieved over the same,
these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court.
4. Perusal of record shows that admittedly, the suit is of the year
2011 and after six years at the stage of arguments, the additional
documents were sought to be received by the trial Court stating that the
petitioner got the documents only now. The petitioner has not stated how
the documents are useful for the decision of the case and why the
petitioners were not able to get those documents at that point of time. It
is the categorical finding of the learned Judge that all such additional
documents were in existence during the examination of witness. But,
even while examining the witness, the revision petitioners had not
whispered about the existence of those documents but only after closure
of examination of witness and when the matter was posted for
arguments, the revision petitioners have come out with these
applications. The revision petitioners cannot mount the witness-box at
this stage to introduce new additional documents.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Bagai Construction v.
M/s.Gupta Building Material Store, reported in (2013) 3 MLJ 185 (SC)
observed as under:
“11) The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff
which are intended to be marked as bills have already been
mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the
original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff
till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that
during the entire trial, those documents have remained in
exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known
to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In
such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at
this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the
evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter
for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the
plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the
lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly
observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or
cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these
documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during
the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of
the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17
casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those
applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record
certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to
prove those bills. Though power under Section 151 can be
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of
process of the court and Court can exercise its discretion to
permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for
further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by
the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the
order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very
well available throughout the trial, we are of the view that
even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff cannot be
permitted.
12) After change of various provisions by way of
amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of
evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and
decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has
repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to
follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the
purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get
defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and
recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible
avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those
applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the
plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court
in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and
evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given
adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that
the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than
sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case.
During the entire trial, those documents have remained in
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not
placed those bills on record. It further shows that final
arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was
reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the
plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the
final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even
with the aid of Section 151 CPC."
The above judgment is also applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and therefore, I do not find any reason
to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judge.
6. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No
costs.
Index : Yes / No 11.03.2021
Internet : Yes / No
pkn
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Kovilpatti.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU, J.
pkn
ORDER MADE IN
CRP(MD)Nos.2232 and 2233 of 2019
DATED : 11.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
