Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Jabeena Hussaini, represented by her power of attorney holder, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.8.2017 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru, in M.A. No.16/2017, rejecting I.A. No.2 filed under Section 141 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S. No.1049/2012, a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant. The plaintiff had initially examined her power of attorney holder as her representative, who was cross-examined. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to reopen the evidence and recall herself for cross-examination to clarify certain discrepancies. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaintiff had already been examined and cross-examined through her power of attorney holder, and that the application was not maintainable. The High Court, per Justice B. Veerappa, examined the scope of Section 151 CPC and Article 227. It held that the trial court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC, which is meant to secure the ends of justice. The court noted that the plaintiff sought to be examined in person to explain discrepancies, and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the application was allowed. The High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed I.A. No.2, directing the trial court to permit the plaintiff to be examined and cross-examined, and to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Reopening of Evidence - The trial court rejected the application filed under Section 141 r/w Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence and recalling the plaintiff for cross-examination, holding that the application was not maintainable as the plaintiff had already been examined and cross-examined. The High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to secure the ends of justice, as the plaintiff sought to be examined in person to clarify discrepancies in the evidence of her power of attorney holder. The impugned order was quashed and the application was allowed. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere with an interlocutory order if the subordinate court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In the present case, the trial court's rejection of the application under Section 151 CPC was held to be a failure to exercise jurisdiction, warranting interference. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru, was justified in rejecting the application filed under Section 141 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reopen the evidence and recall the plaintiff for cross-examination, and whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.8.2017 passed on I.A. No.2 in M.A. No.16/2017 by the IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru, is quashed. I.A. No.2 is allowed. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff to be examined and cross-examined, and to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Section 151 CPC
- Section 141 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Inherent powers of court
- Reopening of evidence
- Examination of witnesses
- Power of attorney holder
