Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in a civil suit, challenged the order of the trial court dated 28.2.2014 rejecting their application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, cancellation of a sale deed dated 16.2.2001, and damages. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had illegally sold road land and encroached upon the suit property. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the defendants sought to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the defendants had ample opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff earlier and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined whether the trial court's discretion was exercised perversely or arbitrarily. It noted that the defendants had not shown any sufficient cause for reopening the evidence at a belated stage. The court held that the trial court's order was not erroneous and did not warrant interference. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reopening of Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Discretion of Trial Court - The trial court rejected the defendants' application to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence after the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the suit was at the stage of final arguments. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Reopening of evidence
- Discretion of trial court
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 93
WRIT PETITION NO.1677 OF 2014
Shri V.D.Muley for the Petitioners, None for the Respondent
Deorao s/o Punjabrao Mohod and Babanrao s/o Anandrao Dhote
Janardhan s/o Dhondbaji Mankar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall plaintiff for cross-examination and lead additional evidence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 28.2.2014 and to allow their application for reopening of evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioners' application to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence after the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the suit was at the stage of final arguments.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner) rejected the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC on 28.2.2014.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court's order was erroneous and that they should be allowed to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence.
Respondent did not appear.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's discretion under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to allow reopening of evidence is not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is perverse or arbitrary. The defendants had ample opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff earlier, and the application was filed belatedly without sufficient cause.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners for considerable length of time.
The facts of the case in a nut shell are as under:-
Thus, complaining of illegal and unauthorized construction over the road land as well as encroachment over the suit property, the respondent – plaintiff had prayed for declaration against the defendants to the effect that defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest to make illegal or unauthorized construction over the road land.
Procedural History
The respondent-plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.101 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, which was transferred to the Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner and renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2012. After the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the defendants (petitioners) filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination and to lead additional evidence. The trial court rejected the application on 28.2.2014. The petitioners challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No.1677 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
