The Madras High Court ruled that trial judges must actively participate in proceedings and not remain passive observers. Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima restored a money recovery suit, holding that courts must seek clarifications and ensure fair trial principles through judicial engagement.
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that a judge presiding over trial proceedings is not expected to remain a passive observer but must actively participate in the judicial process by interacting with lawyers and putting questions to witnesses whenever necessary to clear doubts.
A Division Bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and R Poornima made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by P Palanikumar against the dismissal of his money recovery suit. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order after finding that the lower court had rejected the claim on grounds that were neither raised by the defendant nor put to the plaintiff during the proceedings.
The Bench observed that the trial judge failed to exercise the powers available under law to seek clarification from the parties and counsel. Highlighting the role of a judge in ensuring a fair trial, the Court remarked:
“The Judge should not sit like a sphinx. He must engage in a dialogue with the Bar. He must pose questions to the witness to disabuse his mind of lingering suspicions. This is also a facet of the principles of natural justice,”
ALSO READ: “Change in Mindset Crucial for Mediation to Succeed in India,” Says Supreme Court Judge
The Court further stated that a litigant should not face an unexpected decision based on issues that were never discussed during the hearing. It stressed that the judicial process requires transparency and that both sides must have an opportunity to address all relevant issues.
The Bench said,
“The litigant cannot be taken by surprise. Our adjudicatory system contemplates laying all cards on the table. There can be no ace up the Judge’s sleeve. The outcome of the judgment may be a bolt from the blue but its substance must not. In the sense, it should contain nothing that was not discussed during the course of the proceedings or during the interface of the bar and bench,”
The case arose from a dispute involving a financial transaction between P Palanikumar and R Selvi. Palanikumar had approached the court seeking recovery of Rs 31.54 lakh, claiming that Selvi had borrowed Rs 25 lakh from him on June 5, 2015.
According to Palanikumar, Selvi executed a promissory note acknowledging the loan and agreed to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. He further claimed that Selvi had handed over the original sale deed of her property as security for the transaction.
When Selvi allegedly failed to repay the amount despite demand, Palanikumar issued a legal notice and later filed a recovery suit before the trial court.
However, during the trial proceedings, Selvi did not submit a written statement. She also did not cross-examine Palanikumar or present any evidence to contest the claim.
Despite the absence of a defence from the defendant, the trial court dismissed Palanikumar’s suit. The court held that he had failed to establish his financial ability to lend Rs 25 lakh, prove the mode of payment, or sufficiently establish the execution of the promissory note.
Challenging this decision, Palanikumar approached the High Court. The Division Bench found fault with the trial court’s approach and held that the lower court could not have drawn an adverse conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s financial capacity when the defendant had never disputed that aspect.
The High Court also noted that the trial judge had not asked Palanikumar any questions regarding his capacity to advance the loan, despite later relying on that issue to reject the claim.
The Bench referred to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, which empowers judges to ask questions to witnesses or parties for clarification. The Court also referred to Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to orally examine parties on important issues involved in the dispute.
At the same time, the Court clarified that when judges exercise such powers, the substance of the questions and answers must be recorded as required under Order 10 Rule 3 of the CPC.
The Bench observed,
“The learned trial Judge not having put even a single court question could not have rendered an adverse finding on a point that was not challenged,”
The Court also rejected the reasoning that the transaction was doubtful merely because the loan amount was not reflected in the plaintiff’s income tax records. It held that absence from tax documents alone cannot establish that the transaction never occurred.
Criticising the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court said, “The approach of the Court below is utterly unsatisfactory and the reasons given by the Court below are clearly unsustainable.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed Palanikumar’s appeal and decreed the recovery suit in his favour. The Court directed that once the defendant complies with the decree, she may approach the trial court and collect the original title document deposited as security.
Palanikumar was represented by advocates Raghuvaran Gopalan and L Siva, while advocate J Lawrance appeared for R Selvi.
Case Title: Palanikumar Vs Selvi
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE