Orissa High Court Says Plea To Reopen Evidence In Injunction-Violation Case No Longer Survives As Main Suit Reaches Arguments

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18 January 2019 in I.A. No. 482 of 2012, arising from C.S. No. 251 of 2009.

The trial court had rejected his application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to recall an earlier order and permit further evidence, citing repeated adjournments and delay; the petitioner had already testified as P.W.1 and been cross-examined.

While the CMP was pending, the civil suit proceeded: the plaintiffs’ evidence and the defendants’ evidence were closed, and the suit was posted for arguments.

The High Court considered the trial court’s report on the suit’s subsequent progress.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC empowers a court, at any stage of a suit, to recall an examined witness and put questions to that witness; the provision was set out by the Court.

The petitioner’s application also invoked Section 151 CPC, and the underlying proceeding was under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) CPC.

The Court additionally acted under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already given evidence as P.W.1 and had been cross-examined, while the suit had since progressed through the parties’ evidence and was listed for arguments.

In those circumstances, the Court considered that nothing further remained for adjudication in the CMP.

It also observed that the Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) proceeding was interlocutory and that, with evidence in the suit closed, no further evidence could be allowed in that proceeding.

The Court therefore did not determine the challenge to the 2019 order on its merits.

It also vacated the interim order, which had not been further extended, and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pattamundai, for placement in the suit record.