Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the petitioners (defendants in the original suit) against the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 105/2008. The trial court had rejected the petitioners' application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall witnesses and reopen evidence. The petitioners are Sri H.P. Chikkarama Reddy and Smt. C. Bharathi, who are defendants in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents (plaintiffs). The suit concerns properties in Bellandur Village, Bengaluru. The petitioners contended that they had filed an application to recall PW-1 and PW-2 to prove certain documents, including a gift deed and a will, which they claimed were crucial for their defence. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners had been given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and that the application was filed after the case was posted for arguments. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the trial court's order was based on sound reasoning and that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the evidence sought to be adduced was not within their knowledge earlier. The court noted that the petitioners had already examined two witnesses and that the application appeared to be an attempt to delay the proceedings. The High Court held that the revisional court's power under Section 115 CPC is limited and that no interference was warranted as the trial court had not acted illegally or with material irregularity. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 18 Rule 17 - Recall of Witnesses - Reopening of Evidence - The petitioners sought to recall witnesses to prove additional documents, but the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners had ample opportunity to produce evidence earlier and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court held that the trial court's order was not erroneous or perverse, as the petitioners failed to show that the evidence was not within their knowledge earlier. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Revision - Scope of Interference - The revisional court can interfere only if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court found no such error in the trial court's order. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recalling witnesses and reopening evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 30.06.2014 rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- recall of witnesses
- reopening of evidence
- due diligence
- abuse of process of law
