High Court grants revision petition, permits reopening evidence to address discrepancies.

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Commercial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application to reopen evidence. The petitioner was granted permission to mark the deposition of the 2nd defendant from a criminal case and the judgment. The High Court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to present rebuttal evidence to clarify discrepancies, stating that costs could be awarded even if evidence is later found irrelevant.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner's application to reopen evidence on the side of the plaintiff in a civil suit dismissed by the Commercial Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of a sum against the respondents. The suit was transferred to the Commercial Court. Evidence was closed after the examination of witnesses. The petitioner sought to reopen evidence to mark the deposition of the 2nd defendant from a criminal case. The application was dismissed by the Commercial Court, leading to the revision petition.

The petitioner's contention was that the evidence of the 2nd defendant in the criminal case was inconsistent with the evidence of the 3rd defendant in the civil suit. The petitioner wanted to adduce rebuttal evidence to clarify discrepancies. The Commercial Court rejected the application, stating the available evidence was sufficient.

The petitioner argued that Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the relevancy of evidence given by a witness in a previous proceeding to prove the truth of facts stated. The petitioner claimed the conditions under Section 33 were satisfied, justifying the reopening of evidence.

The respondents contended that the petitioner's delay in filing the application for reopening defeated the purpose of the Code. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that even if evidence is found irrelevant later, costs can be awarded. The High Court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to mark the deposition of the 2nd defendant for a fair trial.

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Commercial Court's order. The petitioner was granted permission to reopen the evidence to mark the deposition of the 2nd defendant and the judgment from the criminal case. The High Court highlighted the necessity of providing an opportunity for rebuttal evidence in light of the circumstances overlooked by the Commercial Court.

---