KRIPA SHANKER Vs. PREM NARAYAN AND 3 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the trial court in Original Suit No. 280 of 2000 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recalling two of the plaintiffs' witnesses namely P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, as well as the order dated 25.5.2015 passed by District Judge dismissing the revision.

(2.) The petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No. 280 of 2000. After the evidence of the parties was over, the petitioner sought an amendment in the written statement to the effect that the suit property had devolved on him, in pursuance of a family partition. In response to the amended plea, the plaintiff filed a replication. Thereafter, an additional issue was framed on the basis of the pleadings made by means of amendment. The plaintiff was again given opportunity to lead evidence. He examined himself as P.W. 1 and thereafter, closed his evidence. The defendant then examined Ramesh Chandra as D.W. 1 and Shiv Singh Yadav as D.W. 2. They were also subjected to cross-examination. After the evidence of the parties came to an end on 13.10.2014, the trial court fixed the matter for hearing. At this stage, the petitioner filed an application for permission to recall the plaintiffs' witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The application has been rejected by the trial court by holding that burden to prove the pleadings raised by means of amendment namely, that the suit property had devolved on the petitioner in a family partition, is on the petitioner. It has been observed that the petitioner has to prove the said plea by the evidence lead by him. The trial court has noted that in the application filed by the petitioner for recalling P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, he has not disclosed any reason why they are required to be recalled for cross-examination. The court has also placed reliance on under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC, in observing that in its opinion, there was no need to recall the witnesses.

(3.) The revision court while holding that the order impugned is an interlocutory order has further concurred with the view taken by the trial court.