CRP/2407/2025 of V.P.R.VARADHARAJAN Vs S.CHELLAPPAN on 8 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal order passed by in I.A.Nos. 11 and 12 of 2025 in O.S. No.7816 of 2009 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 29.04.2025 wherein the applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff to recall PW1 to mark additional documents, came to be allowed by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S.No.7816 of 2009, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit reached the stage of trial and PW1 was examined-in-chief and was also cross-examined on the side of the defendant. After the cross-examination of PW1, the present applications were filed to re-open and re-call PW1 for marking additional documents. The Court below on considering the rival claims, came to a conclusion that an opportunity must be given to the plaintiff to establish their case and accordingly, allowed the applications with a condition that the plaintiff must pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- to the defendant. Aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions are filed before this Court.

4. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner is that there was absolutely no reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the applications as to why the additional documents were not brought in at the earliest point of time. The other objection raised is that these applications have been filed only to cover up the lacunae and to get over certain vital answers that were given by PW1 during cross-examination. To substantiate the said plea, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410.

5. In the case on hand, this Court in order to satisfy itself regarding the additional documents that are sought to be brought in by the plaintiff, went through the nature of documents and it is seen that all the additional documents pertain to the pleadings in the earlier suits and the judgment and decree passed. The certified copy of all the documents are sought to be marked on the side of the plaintiff by recalling PW1.

6. It is true that the affidavit filed in support of the applications does not explain as to why the plaintiff was not able to file and mark these documents at the earliest point of time. However, considering the fact that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the case and the suit is at the stage of examination of witness on the side of the plaintiff, an opportunity can be given to the plaintiff to recall PW1.

7. At this juncture, this Court has to take into consideration the judgment that had been relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar referred supra. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has categorically held that the object behind Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is to enable the parties to lead evidence to clarify the doubts and not to fill up the omissions in the evidence of witness who has already been examined.

8. The additional documents that are sought to be marked on the side of the plaintiff are only certified copies of the pleadings and judgment of the earlier proceedings. If PW1 is sought to be recalled only for this purpose to speak about these pleadings and judgment, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant since the defendant will also have the opportunity to cross-examine. The Court below shall bear-in-mind the fact that recalling PW1 is only for the purpose of marking the additional documents and speaking about those documents and it is not for the purpose of improving or filling the omissions in the evidence of the witness who has already been cross-examined by the defendant in extenso. If this safeguard is given, it will balance the rights of both the parties.

9. In light of the above discussions, the order passed by the Court below is sustained and these civil revision petitions are disposed of with the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAL

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. KAL To S.Chellappan S/o.P.R.Subbiah Ambalam, rep.by his Power of Attorney Agent, Ku. Elavarasu, (Amended as per order dated 26.9.2019 in IA.No.2/2019) No.33, E.M.St, Pudhuvayal, Sivaganga Dist. CRP Nos. 2407 & 2410 of 2025 & CMP No.13877 of 2025 08-10-2026