Defendants may receive one final opportunity to examine witnesses on payment of costs.

The respondent Charity filed O.S. Nos. 631 and 640 of 2020 seeking recovery of possession, rent arrears and damages.

After PW1’s evidence was closed when the petitioners did not cross-examine him, the petitioners obtained permission to reopen the evidence and recall PW1, but the cross-examination was again closed on 7 February 2026.

In earlier revisions, the High Court directed the petitioners to deposit ₹2 lakh in each suit and ordered expeditious disposal.

The petitioners later deposited those sums and applied under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to reopen the cases to examine defence witnesses.

The trial court dismissed the applications, citing non-compliance with the earlier deposit direction and the absence of an adequate explanation for the delay.

The petitioners challenged those dismissals under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court’s refusal to reopen the cases for the petitioners to examine their witnesses warranted interference under Article 227.

2. Whether the petitioners should be given a further opportunity to present defence evidence, and, if so, on what conditions.

The petitions invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered whether the trial court’s orders disclosed perversity warranting supervisory interference.

The applications were made under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, seeking to reopen the cases to examine defence witnesses.

The judgment cites no precedent and states no broader rule under that provision; it grants a final opportunity in the circumstances, subject to costs and a strict timeline.

The High Court found no perversity in the trial court’s orders, given the petitioners’ conduct and their earlier failure to comply with the deposit direction.

However, as the required ₹2 lakh had since been deposited in each suit, and the claims included recovery of possession, the Court considered it appropriate to allow one last opportunity to present defence evidence, conditional on payment of costs.

The petitioners were directed to pay ₹5,000 in costs in each suit to the plaintiff within one week; upon compliance, the trial court must permit the defendants to examine their witnesses.

If they fail to pay, the trial court’s dismissal orders stand revived.

The trial court was directed to complete both suits within eight weeks of receiving the order and to file a compliance report.

No costs were awarded in the revisions, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.