P VEERAMANI Vs. VELLAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed in IA. No. 514/2008, which was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen the evidence for the purpose of examination of the scribe as a witness on his side, in OS. No. 787/2001 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Trichy, dismissing the said application, this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, contending inter alia that the court below failed to consider the fact that the scribe, who was sought to be examined, was employed at Bangalore and there was difficulty in summoning him, however as he resigned his post and settled at Trichy presently, necessity has arisen to examine him as a witness in order to prove the case of the plaintiff.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the scribe is none other than the son of the plaintiff and the said fact has been suppressed by the petitioner and there could not be any difficulty for him to examine his son, who would not refuse to oblige him, had he been summoned and this petition is filed only to fill up the lacuna. He would submit that only when during non examination of the scribe, the same was pointed out by the learned trial judge during the course of the arguments, the petitioner had come with the petition belatedly. He would submit that the principles applicable to Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC could be applied for summoning the witnesses under Section 151 CPC, when a party makes an application under the aforesaid section to reopen the evidence and examine the witnesses after the entire evidence was over. The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 4 SCC 410, wherein it is held that Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC is not intended to be used to fill up the omission in the evidence of a witness and the main purpose of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC is to enable the court to clarify any doubts that might arise during the cross examination.

(3.) It is well settled said that an opportunity to a party to recall or examine any witnesses may not be refused on the ground that the evidence on both sides are over and it is posted for arguments, as hearing of arguments in a suit is not a distinct stage of the hearing contemplated by CPC, but it is a part of hearing just as such as recording of evidence. It follows that before arguments are concluded, a party is entitled to request the court to receive any further oral or documentary evidence provided that it is not to fill up the lacuna and in such case, it is left to the court, in exercise of its discretion, to grant it or not.