AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 201 wordsK. Kannan, J.—The grievance of the petitioner is that the plaintiffs witnesses were not available on the day when the case was posted for
cross examination. The Court therefore closed the evidence and directed the defendant to bring his evidence. The plaintiff is aggrieved that
sufficient opportunity was not given to tender his evidence. If the plaintiff had been lax in the conduct of trial and if the Court decides to close it I
cannot interfere with the same. If the plaintiff however has any justification for not being able to produce evidence on the day which was fixed, he
shall be at liberty to file an application for recall the witness whose evidence had remained incomplete setting out the reasons as to why the
production of the witnesses was not possible on that, day and if the Court finds adequate justification it may allow for the case to be re-opened
and proceed with opportunity for cross examination to the defendant and if need be by imposition of heavy costs for the laches on the part of the
petitioner.
The revision, petition is dismissed as unnecessary but with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the court below for appropriate redressal.