AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Defendants in O.S.1516/2004 on the file of the 19th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, aggrieved by the order dt. 29.11.2010 rejecting IA-6 and IA-7 u/s 151 CPC and under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have presented these petitions.
In the suit instituted by the Respondent for recovery of money, the Respondent was examined as PW-1 and was cross-examined on 8.1.2010 while PW-2 when examined was cross-examined on 3.11.2010 and on the closure of the side of the Plaintiff, the Petitioners-Defendants entered trial, examined legal representative of 1st Defendant- the 1st Petitioner herein as DW-1, on whose cross-examination the Defendants closed their side and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the Petitioners filed IA-6 u/s 151 CPC to re-open the case and IA-7 under Order 13 Rule 17Code of Civil Procedure to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. These applications were opposed by filing statement of objections of the Plaintiff-Respondent interalia contending that PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined at length and the suit being for recovery of money, the applications filed at the belated stage were not meritorious.
Before the court below it was asserted that the reason for re-opening the case and recalling PW-1 for cross-examination was that subsequent to the closure of the evidence of the Plaintiff, it came to the knowledge of the Defendants that the Plaintiff was a regular money lender without a licence and instituted civil suits for recovery of money, though not supported by relevant material. The court below having noticed the wanting of material, as well as the averments in the affidavit making no reference to relevant material except an assertion that they had knowledge of similar cases being filed by the Plaintiff, declined to accept the explanation as justifiable reason to re-open the case and recall PW-1 for further cross-examination and accordingly by the order impugned, rejected the applications.
In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the court below in the order impugned calling for interference.
Petitions devoid of merits, are accordingly rejected.