Reopening of case and recalling of witnesses should be allowed in compelling circumstances!

After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact applications for adjournments reopening and recalling are interim measures could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter in order to improve its case the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.idence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments reopening and recalling are interim measures could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter in order to improve its case the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.