Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to reopen evidence for cross-examining material witnesses.

The petitioners (defendants) challenged the Trial Court's order dated October 29, 2022, which allowed respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) a final opportunity to cross-examine petitioner No. 1 (DW-3)

In a civil suit originating in 2016, the Trial Court had previously closed the respondent’s right to cross-examine the petitioner on April 18, 2017

After a delay of nearly four years, the respondent filed an application to recall that order, contending that she was 88 years old, residing in Gujarat, and was unaware of the 2017 order until new counsel was engaged in 2021

The Trial Court allowed the recall subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000

The petitioners argued the application was a belated attempt to fill lacunae in the respondent's case

1. Whether the Trial Court properly exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recall an order closing the right to cross-examine a witness after a significant delay.

2. Whether the cross-examination of a material witness (defendant) is necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit despite procedural lapses.

The court primarily applied Section 151 of the CPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, which established that while there is no specific provision in the CPC for reopening evidence, Section 151 can be invoked in appropriate cases to recall witnesses for further examination or cross-examination to ensure justice, provided it does not violate express prohibitions

The Court observed that Petitioner No. 1, being a defendant and witness (DW-3), is a "material witness" whose testimony is vital to the case

While acknowledging the four-year delay in filing the recall application, the Court prioritized the "ends of justice" and the need for "effective adjudication" over rigid procedural timelines

It noted the Trial Court’s reasoning regarding the respondent’s advanced age (88 years) and the change in legal counsel as sufficient grounds for exercising discretion

The Court determined that since the power under Section 151 is intended to meet the ends of justice, and the Trial Court had mitigated the prejudice to the petitioners by imposing costs, there was no "infirmity or illegality" in the impugned order

The Court held that the cross-examination of a material witness is essential for a fair trial and that the Trial Court rightly exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to grant a final opportunity for cross-examination, subject to the payment of costs

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly