MAHARASHTRA STATE SEED CORPORATION LTD., KALLUR, KURNOOL AND OTHERS Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE SEED CERTIFICATION AGENCY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda for petitioners and Mr.A.Tulsi Raj Gokul for respondents.

(2.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No.05 of 2009 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool District, are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order in I.A. No.268 of 2016 filed by revision petitioners herein to reopen the trial for adducing further evidence of plaintiffs. On 15.09.2008, the revision petitioners filed O.S. No.5 of 2009 for a decree directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.54,76,274.00 to petitioners. On 14.09.2016, the 2nd petitioner herein for and on behalf of other petitioners filed affidavit in I.A. No.268 of 2016. The affidavit of 2nd petitioner is very brief and Para 2 of the affidavit is to be excerpted for appreciating the prayer for reopening the suit which reads thus:

(3.) The respondents herein vehemently opposed the prayer for reopening the case for adducing further evidence. The objections of respondents are that the petition under Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') is not maintainable, for there is explicit provision of law in Order 18 Rule 17 of Civil P.C. and that the affidavit is deposed by a proforma party to the lis. If at all, need for the purpose for which the petition is filed exists, the application ought to have been moved at the instance of the 1st petitioner. The documents for which the petitioners seek reopening were marked through PW.2, an officer of 1st petitioner corporation and therefore, the Company Secretary's evidence is not required to again speak on these documents. The prayer to reopen the case for adducing further evidence, if allowed and accepted, the same would amount to plugging the holes in the case of petitioners and amounts to dragging the suit which is pending for over seven years. It is further stated that the revision petitioners have not made out a case for reopening the evidence at all. The procedure followed by petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of fair trial. The respondents relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. 2011 (9) SCC 678.