Dr. Suman Singh vs Sandhya Vaidyanathan

E.S. Indiresh, J

These Writ petitions are filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.6467 of 2015 and the plaintiff in Original Suit No.6376 of 2015 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), challenging the order dated 16th February, 2022, allowing IAs.12 & 13 and IAs.9 & 10 in Original Suits respectively, filed by the defendant.

The relevant facts for adjudication of these writ petitions are that the plaintiff filed suit, seeking damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively, as compensation for defamation caused to plaintiffs with other consequential relief. In the said suit, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. In the meanwhile, defendant has filed application in IA.12 and IA.9 respectively under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reopen the case; and IA.13 and IA.10 respectively, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to recall PW1 for further Cross-examination. The said applications was resisted by plaintiffs. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by impugned order dated 16th February, 2022, allowed the applications in IAs.12 and 13 and IAs.9 and 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have preferred these writ petitions.

I have heard Sri. Rajesh B.L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who contended that on the earlier occasion also similar applications have been filed by the defendant and the opportunity has been given to the defendant to cross-examine PW1. Thereafter, defendant has filed these applications only with a view to protract the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court requires to be interfered with in these writ petitions. He further contended that applications have been filed by the defendant to recall the order dated 07th February, 2020, whereas the suit was not listed before the trial Court on 07th February, 2020 and therefore, he submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the records and as such, prays for interference of this Court.

In the light of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I have carefully considered the material on record and the prayer made in the plaint. Undisputably, the prayer in the plaint is for claiming damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively, for defamation caused to plaintiff on account of illegality committed by the defendant. The suit is defended by the defendant by filing written statement. Perusal of the finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order would indicate that the Cross-examination of PW1 has been concluded on 03rd January, 2020. Thereafter, defendant has filed application to recall PW1 for further Cross-examination. Though the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is justified in asserting that the mentioning of the date of applications is not correct, however, looking into aspect that the prayer in the plaint claiming damages of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- respectively from the defendant, so also, considering that fair opportunity be made available to the defendant to Cross-examine the PW1, I am of the view that the trial Court is justified in allowing IAs.12 & 13 and IAs.9 & 10. Trial Court is also justified in imposing the cost in favour of the plaintiff with a specific direction to the defendant to complete the Cross-examination on the next date of hearing without fail. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the trial Court has properly taken contentions raised by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that the essential opportunity of the Cross-examination cannot be curtailed to the defendant, as a last opportunity. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court is just and proper which does not call for interference in these writ petitions. It is also made clear that the defendants shall cross-examine PW1 on next date of hearing without fail, failing which, the defendant cannot take advantage of the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits.