Allowed

Mr. Vivek Vijay Gupta and Anr. v. Soham Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2015WP/7855/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting an application to recall a witness for cross-examination. The Court held that a fair trial requires providing the defendant a final opportunity to cross-examine, given the procedural history. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the witness was directed to appear for continuous cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.06.2015 was quashed; the application for recall of witness PW-1 was allowed; continuous cross-examination was directed.

Mr. Vivek Vijay Gupta and Anr. Vs Soham Metal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

07.09.2015

¶2

WP-7855-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7855 OF 2015

¶5

Mr. Vivek Vijay Gupta and another .. Petitioners Versus Soham Metal Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent

¶6

Ms. Kranti S. S. Anand, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Ghogare a/w Mr. R. A. Tekale, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 07^th SEPTEMBER, 2015

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order 12.06.2015 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order the Application Exh.60 filed by the Defendants i.e. the Petitioners herein for recall of the witness PW-1 came to be rejected.

¶11

2. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it would be to state that a host of documents numbered as Exh.23 to Exh.57 were exhibited on 17.11.2014 and thereafter the matter

¶12

was set down for the cross-examination of the PW-1. The suit was thereafter shown on various dates between 08.01.2015 to 07.05.2015 i.e.

1 of 3

BGP .

07.09.2015

WP-7855-15.doc

¶17

the date antecedent to the date of the impugned order. On the said dates as the Roznama discloses at times the adjournment was sought on behalf of the Plaintiff and at times the advocate of the Defendant and the Defendant were absent. It is not a case that since post the exhibition of the documents on 17.11.2014 i.e. from 08.01.2015 till 07.05.2015 the Defendant is continuously unrepresented. May be on some particular dates the Defendant was not represented before the Trial Court so as to conduct the cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness PW-1. The question that begs an answer is therefore whether the said fact justifies the passing of no cross-examination order against the Defendant. The answer has to be in the negative. It is well settled that there should be a fair trial and parties should be given a proper opportunity to prosecute the proceedings. It is on the said basis that a final opportunity is required to be extended to the Defendant to cross-examine the PW-1. The impugned order dated 12.06.2015 is accordingly quashed and set aside. The Application Exh.60 would stand allowed. The following directions are issued :-

¶18

I) The Plaintiff would keep the witness present for cross-

¶19

examination on the date fixed by the Trial Court. Since the parties are to appear before the Trial tomorrow i.e. on 08.09.2015, the Trial Court to fix the date for crossexamination either this week or within ten days from date.

2 of 3

BGP .

07.09.2015

WP-7855-15.doc

¶24

II) The cross-examination of the witness PW-1 once

¶25

commenced would be continuous till it is completed and would be conducted on day to day basis.

¶26

III) In the facts and circumstances of the case the Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Plaintiff. The Petitioner to deposit a further amount of Rs.5000/- in this Court within one week and produce evidence before the Trial Court of the deposit of the said costs. The said amount of Rs.5000/- would be in addition to the amount of Rs.5000/- which according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is already deposited in this Court. Thereafter the Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff would be entitled to withdraw the total amount of Rs.10,000/- which would be lying in deposit in this Court. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

BGP .

Mr. Vivek Vijay Gupta and Anr. v. Soham Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vivek Vijay Gupta and Anr. v. Soham Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidya Nivas Co-Op.Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. B.S.M. Construction through Its Partner Shri. Kishor B. Mahindrakar and Ors. Vs Rajani Corner II Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. through Chairman Shri. Sanjay Machutre and Anr.

Smt. Sumanlata Premchand Jain (Expired) through Mr. Jitendra Premchand Jain and Ors. Vs the Addl. Collector (Enc. and Rem.) and Ors.

Kailashwati Vishwamitter Khosla Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Controlling Revenue Authority

Shri. Dnyaneshwar alias Dnyanu Rakhmaji Chaudhari (Decd) Vs Shri. Haribhau Baburao Padwal and Ors.

Mr. Shahnawaz a. Mithani Vs Ismailia Co-Operative Housing Soc. Ltd. and Ors.