1965 (7) TMI 68 - HC - Indian Laws

Contractual Breach Confirmed: Clear Terms Violated, Full Damages Awarded to Plaintiff Under Section 404

Sultan Saleh Bin Omer Versus Vijayachand Sirimal

The SC upheld the plaintiff's claim of breach of contract, finding that the defendant failed to fulfill contractual obligations. The court determined that ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the trial Court erred in reopening the trial after it had been 'closed' and the matter posted for arguments, thereby allowing the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead rebuttal evidence.Whether the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) preclude the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling witnesses and reopening evidence.Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to reopen the trial once it had been closed and posted for arguments.What constitutes the 'hearing of the suit' under the C.P.C., and whether hearing arguments is a distinct stage separate from the trial or part of the hearing.Whether the circumstances justified granting the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead further evidence.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the trial Court erred in reopening the trial after it had been closed and the matter posted for argumentsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined the procedural provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, particularly Order 18 which governs the hearing of suits and examination of witnesses, and the practice relating to stages of trial and hearing. The Court also referred to the decision in Hans Raj v. Sohan Singh, which interpreted the meaning of 'hearing of the suit'.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the notion that the trial had been 'closed' in a strict sense once evidence recording ended and the matter was posted for arguments. It held that the Code does not contemplate hearing arguments as a separate stage distinct from the hearing of the suit. Instead, the hearing includes both the recording of evidence and the arguments. The hearing continues until judgment is pronounced or the suit is posted for judgment. Therefore, the trial Court's action in allowing further examination and cross-examination during the hearing phase was within its jurisdiction.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the procedural history where the plaintiff's advocates were absent on the day the defendant's witness was examined, leading to the defendant's evidence being 'closed' and the matter posted for arguments. The plaintiff subsequently sought reopening to cross-examine the witness and lead rebuttal evidence.Application of law to facts: Applying the procedural provisions, the Court found that since the suit had not been posted for judgment but only for arguments, the hearing was still ongoing. Hence, the trial Court could exercise discretion to allow further evidence and cross-examination without the need to formally 'reopen' the trial.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to reopen the trial once closed and posted for arguments. The Court disagreed, finding that the concept of 'closing' the trial was misunderstood and that the hearing stage was continuous until judgment.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the trial Court did not err in allowing the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead rebuttal evidence during the hearing phase.Issue 2: Whether Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C. precludes invocation of Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling witnessesRelevant legal framework and precedents: Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C. states that the Court may recall any witness at any stage and put questions to him, subject to the law of evidence. Section 151 C.P.C. provides inherent powers to the Court to make orders necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted Order 18, Rule 17 as conferring on the Court the right to recall witnesses and put questions but does not explicitly grant parties the right to recall witnesses for cross-examination or re-examination. The Court held that this Rule does not govern the parties' right to recall witnesses; rather, the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. may be invoked to grant such opportunities when circumstances warrant.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner contended that since Order 18, Rule 17 exists, Section 151 could not be invoked to reopen evidence or recall witnesses for cross-examination. The Court rejected this, observing that the Rule primarily empowers the Court itself to recall witnesses, not parties.Application of law to facts: The Court applied this interpretation to uphold the trial Court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead rebuttal evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that Section 151 C.P.C. was improperly invoked was dismissed as the Court found no bar to its use in circumstances where Order 18, Rule 17 does not provide a party right to recall witnesses.Conclusions: The Court held that the trial Court rightly exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. to permit recalling the witness for cross-examination and leading rebuttal evidence.Issue 3: What constitutes the 'hearing of the suit' and whether hearing arguments is a distinct stageRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined various provisions of the C.P.C., including Orders 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, to determine the stages of a suit's trial and hearing. It also relied on the judicial interpretation in Hans Raj v. Sohan Singh.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the hearing of the suit includes the entire process from commencement of evidence recording to the pronouncement of judgment. Hearing arguments is not a separate or distinct stage but part of the hearing itself. The Court noted that the Code does not contemplate 'closing' the trial before arguments and that the hearing continues until judgment or posting for judgment.Key evidence and findings: The Court analyzed the procedural provisions, noting that the Code provides for the first hearing, framing of issues, recording of evidence, hearing arguments, and pronouncement of judgment as parts of a continuous hearing process.Application of law to facts: Applying this understanding, the Court found that the trial Court's decision to allow further evidence and cross-examination during the hearing phase was consistent with the procedural framework.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's contention that the trial was closed and arguments were a separate stage was rejected as contrary to the Code and judicial interpretation.Conclusions: The Court concluded that hearing arguments is part of the hearing of the suit and not a distinct stage, so the trial Court's discretion to allow further evidence during arguments is valid.Issue 4: Whether the circumstances justified granting the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1 and lead further evidenceRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the principle that courts have discretion to allow recall or further evidence if justified by circumstances, including unavoidable absence of counsel.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the trial Court's finding that the plaintiff's advocates were absent due to unavoidable circumstances beyond their control. It held that fairness and justice warranted granting the plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead rebuttal evidence.Key evidence and findings: The affidavits filed by the plaintiff's advocates explaining their absence were accepted as satisfactory justification.Application of law to facts: Applying the principle of discretion and inherent jurisdiction, the Court upheld the trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff to cross-examine and lead further evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the defendants were prejudiced and that the trial Court erred in granting the opportunity. The Court noted that the trial Court did not allow the defendants to adduce further evidence and that the opportunity was limited and balanced by allowing both parties to lead further evidence if necessary.Conclusions: The Court found the circumstances sufficient to justify the trial Court's exercise of discretion in favor of the plaintiff.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'A close reading of this Rule [Order 18, Rule 17] makes it obvious that the right under that Rule to put questions at any stage of a suit, or recall any witness for that purpose, is given to the Court. The Court can put questions to the witness re-called, and no cross-examination is ordinarily allowed upon the answers to the questions put by the Judge without leave. The right to act under this Rule is not restricted to the Court on its own motion, but may be exercised at the instance of a party. It cannot, therefore, be said that an opportunity to a party to re-call any witness for the purpose of examining, cross-examining or re-examining is governed by Order 18, Rule 17 C. P. C. I, therefore, hold that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 151 C. P. C.''The Code has not provided for hearing of arguments as a distinct stage in the trial of the suit. On the other hand, according to Order 15, Rule 3, the hearing of the suit includes both production of evidence, as well as argument. It is in the option of the parties to argue their case after the evidence in the suit is closed, and it is for them to decide whether they will exercise their privilege or not. In other words, once the trial of the suit is taken up and the examination of the witnesses has commenced, the hearing of the suit is said to begin; and that hearing comes to an end only with the delivery of the judgment, or when the suit is posted for judgment where it is reserved.''I cannot accept the contention... that the trial Court had acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction in re-opening the suit already closed, for, there was no need for any re-opening, when the hearing is not concluded.''On the affidavits filed before him, the learned Assistant Judge was satisfied that the plaintiff's counsel were unable to be present for reasons beyond their control. I agree with him, and hold that in the circumstances, the opportunity was rightly given to the plaintiff to cross-examine D. W. 1.'Core principles established include:The hearing of a suit encompasses both evidence recording and arguments; it is a continuous stage until judgment is pronounced or reserved.Order 18, Rule 17 confers power on the Court to recall witnesses and put questions but does not confer on parties a right to recall witnesses for cross-examination; such rights may be granted under inherent jurisdiction (Section 151 C.P.C.) when justified.The trial Court has discretion to allow recall of witnesses and further evidence during the hearing phase, even if evidence recording is ostensibly complete, provided the hearing is not concluded.Unavoidable absence of counsel is a valid ground for granting an opportunity to cross-examine and lead further evidence.Final determinations:The trial Court did not err in reopening the trial to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant's witness and lead rebuttal evidence.The invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. to allow recall and further evidence was proper and not barred by Order 18, Rule 17.The hearing of the suit is a continuous process including evidence and arguments, and the trial Court's discretion to allow further evidence during this phase is valid.The circumstances justified granting the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine and lead further evidence, and the revision petition challenging this was dismissed.