SMT. GOLLU SATYAVATHI Vs. SRI KILAPARTHI APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 10.10.2017 in I.A. No. 1940 of 2017 in O.S. No. 361 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The aforementioned suit was originally filed by one Gollu Surya Rao, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 5, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Before the death of the original plaintiff, he examined himself as PW-1. After closing his side evidence, the evidence on the defence side was commenced. After DW-1's evidence was closed, on the application filed by the original plaintiff, the former was recalled and further cross examined. On 23.02.2017, the original plaintiff has died. The petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in June, 2017.

(2.) Under Order 18, Rule 2, on the day fixed for hearing of the suit or on any other date to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin, shall state its case and produce any evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. It is implied from this provision that at the commencement of trial, the party has to be ready with his witnesses, so that their examination will go on till it is completed unhindered. It has now become a practise that the plaintiff or the defendant comes out with requests, much after closing their side's evidence, by pleading some reason or the other, for reopening the evidence. Though fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts to consider such requests, unless strong reasons are pleaded and the Court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not desirable to re-open the evidence, merely on the parties making such requests. It is needless to observe that the suits which are kept pending for years, would get further delayed if the Courts accept requests for re-opening of evidence, for the mere asking, without the party making out a strong case for such re-opening.

(3.) In the instant case, except for the reason that the original plaintiff has died and the petitioners have come on record later, they failed to assign any plausible reason to reopen the suit for examining the proposed PW-2 and As rightly observed by the lower Court, either in the pleadings or in the evidence of PW-1, role of proposed PW-2 and 3 has not been referred to. Hence, in a suit filed for declaration of title, the evidence of the proposed witnesses may not have any relevance at all.