Madras HC Upholds Order Allowing Further Cross-Examination Of Co-Defendant’s Son And Two Receipt Witnesses In 1/5 Share Sale Dispute

The plaintiff brought a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a sale deed executed by the fourth defendant, including in her capacity as the plaintiff’s power agent, was invalid insofar as it affected the plaintiff’s alleged one-fifth share, and seeking partition.

The fifth defendant contended that the plaintiff had received her proportionate consideration and issued a receipt

After the defendants’ evidence closed, the plaintiff applied to reopen that evidence under Section 151 CPC and to recall D.W.4 to D.W.6 for further cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.

She stated that, while preparing submissions, she had discovered information and documents that could discredit those witnesses.

The Trial Court allowed both applications, subject to costs.

The fifth defendant challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The applications were considered under Section 151 CPC, which preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, concerning the court’s power to recall a witness.

The High Court assessed the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion with reference to the interests of justice, natural justice, and the need to afford parties an opportunity to establish their case.

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a separate test for interference under Article 227.

The High Court found that the Trial Court had considered the reasons stated in the plaintiff’s affidavits and exercised its discretion to permit further cross-examination.

It noted that the witnesses had not previously been recalled and re-examined at the plaintiff’s request, and that the parties were closely related.

In those circumstances, it considered the orders justified in the interests of justice and consistent with natural justice.

To address the fifth defendant’s concern about delay and inconvenience to the witnesses, the Court directed that D.W.4 to D.W.6 be cross-examined on the day they appeared, without an adjournment at the plaintiff’s request.

It directed that the recalled witnesses be cross-examined on the day of their appearance without an adjournment at the plaintiff’s instance, and that the parties cooperate for expeditious disposal.

No order as to costs was made.