Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 45 (MAD)

P. Palanisamy v. R. Lakshmi

2019-01-03

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
ORDER : 1. The civil revision petitions are directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 24.08.2009, passed in I.A.Nos.581 and 582 of 2009 respectively, in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 1998, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani. 2. The revision petitioner is the fourth respondent in M.C.O.P.No.223 of 1998, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palani and it is seen that he had been impleaded as the fourth respondent in the above said M.C.O.P. as per the order, dated 04.02.2005, in I.A.No.707 of 2004. Thereafter, it is seen that the revision petitioner had preferred I.A.Nos.581 and 582 of 2009 in the above said M.C.O.P. to reopen the matter and to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of cross examining him by the revision petitioner and the above said applications having not been entertained by the Court below, aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petitions have been laid by the revision petitioner. 3. As could be seen from the impugned orders and the available records, the M.C.O.P. has been laid in the year 1998 by the claimants seeking for compensation. It is further noted that on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were recalled and examined in the years 2005 and 2009 and furthermore, it is also noted that R.Ws.1 to 5 had already been examined on various dates as detailed in the order. Thereafter, it is seen that the evidence having been closed and the matter stood adjourned for arguments and the claimants' side arguments had been heard by the Court below and adjourned for the respondents' side arguments, at that stage of the matter, it is found that the revision petitioner had moved the applications to reopen the case for the purpose of enabling him to recall R.W.1 to cross-examine him with reference to his defence and as according to the revision petitioner, inasmuch as he had been impleaded only by way of the order, dated 04.02.2005 in I.A.No.707 of 2004 and as R.W.1 had already been examined in the matter on 18.07.2001, he had no opportunity to cross-examine R.W.1 and accordingly, prayed for the reliefs sought for. 4. 4. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials available on record, noting that though the revision petitioner had been impleaded as the fourth respondent by order, dated 04.02.2005, thereafter, the revision petitioner having not endeavoured in any manner to recall R.W.1 with reference to his defence and considering the fact that the M.C.O.P. having been laid in the year 1998 and the evidence of the claimants and the respondents having been already closed by 2005 and 2009 itself, accordingly, holding that the revision petitioner cannot be allowed to recall the witness as he deems fit and desires and the revision petitioner having failed to take necessary endeavours in that aspect at the earliest point of time, accordingly, chose to dismiss the applications preferred by the revision petitioner. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petitions have been laid. 5. As rightly determined by the Court below, the M.C.O.P. levied by the claimants seeking for compensation had been instituted in the year 1998. Thereafter, the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective cases as above noted and also detailed in the impugned orders. It is found that at one stage of the matter, the revision petitioner, on the footing that he is not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident and only the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle had not been insured on the date of the accident, accordingly, contending that he has a defence to resist the M.C.O.P., sought for his impleadment in the matter and accordingly, taking into consideration his case, it is found that the Court below had impleaded him as the fourth respondent by order, dated 04.02.2005 in I.A. No. 707 of 2004. In such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the Court below, when the revision petitioner had got himself impleaded in the year 2005 itself, there is no explanation on the part of the revision petitioner as to why he had not endeavoured to recall R.W.1 at the earliest point of time for the purpose of cross-examining him with reference to his case and on the other hand, it is found that he had kept mum and after the evidence of the respective parties had been recorded and closed and thereafter, the matter had been adjourned for arguments and subsequently, the claimants' side arguments having also been heard, at that stage of the matter, it is found that the revision petitioner had moved the Court to reopen the matter and recall R.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. When there is no proper explanation on the part of the revision petitioner as to why he had not preferred the above said applications at the earliest point of time and accordingly, the Court below noting that the M.C.O.P. having been laid in the year 1998 and pending since then, the impleading party, namely, the revision petitioner having not evinced interest to prefer the above said applications at the earliest point of time and accordingly, determining that only to delay the proceedings endlessly, the above said applications having been preferred, dismissed the said applications of the revision petitioner. The reasonings adduced by the Court below for dismissing the applications preferred by the revision petitioner, in my considered opinion, do not warrant interference as it is noted that absolutely, no convincing reason has been put-forth by the revision petitioner as to what prevented him from preferring the above said applications at the earliest point of time and the attitude of the revision petitioner would only go to show that he is under the impression that he could take his own time in defending the matter and accordingly, very belatedly had moved the applications, which had been rightly discountenanced by the Court below. 6. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petitions. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.