Madras HC Upholds Refusal To Reopen Plaintiffs’ Evidence, Says Trial Court May Require Witness’s Passport To Check His Presence In India

In brief

The question

Whether the trial court’s refusal to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and recall PW2 to produce his passport warranted interference under Article 227

The court held

The High Court sustained the District Munsif’s order but disposed of the revision petitions on the stated terms: the trial court may direct PW2 to produce his passport, mark a photocopy of the relevant 2012 entries if produced, and consider drawing an adverse inference if it is not produced.

It also directed

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The respondents, as plaintiffs, brought O.S. No. 338 of 2017 seeking a permanent injunction.

After PW1 and PW2 had testified, the defendant sought to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and recall PW2 to produce and mark his passport.

The defendant relied on PW2’s testimony that he possessed a passport covering 2012–2026 and sought to establish that PW2 was outside India at the relevant time, thereby challenging his credibility.

The District Munsif dismissed the applications, and the defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 3–4

The High Court noted that the applications were filed soon after PW2’s evidence was closed.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the trial court’s refusal to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and recall PW2 to produce his passport warranted interference under Article 227

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether PW2’s passport should be produced so the trial court could assess its relevant entries and, if it was not produced, consider drawing an adverse inference

p. 5

03Law Applied

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the procedural basis for the defendant’s revision petitions.

The Court stated that an adverse inference should follow only after an attempt has been made to require production of the passport and the direction is not complied with; the trial court may direct production, permit a photocopy of the relevant entries to be marked while returning the original, and consider an adverse inference if the passport is not produced.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The defendant sought the passport to test PW2’s assertion about his presence at the site and to challenge his credibility.

Because the applications were made soon after PW2’s evidence closed, the Court did not regard them as having been filed at the fag end of the trial.

p. 5

It considered that the evidentiary concern could be addressed by directing PW2 to produce the passport; if produced, the relevant entries could be copied and marked, and if not, the trial court could consider an adverse inference based on the case circumstances.

p. 5

The Court therefore resolved the grievance through directions to the trial court rather than setting aside its order.