Allowed

Mukul Lahkar v. M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2020CRP(I/O)/239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside orders closing cross-examination and rejecting a recall petition in a money suit. The Court granted the petitioner one last opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, fixing a date with consequences for default.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the orders dated 17.05.2018 and 25.04.2019. Granted petitioner one last opportunity to cross-examine PWs on 22.06.2020. Warning issued that failure to cross-examine leads to forfeiture of ri

Mukul Lahkar Vs M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010166462019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 239/2019

¶6

1:MUKUL LAHKAR

¶7

S/O LT. JOY CHANDRA LAHKAR AND A R/O RUBBER BAGAN, TEZPUR,PO. AND P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:M/S. OM INFRACON PVT. LTD.

¶10

A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2 C AND D, PRAGLAND BHAWAN, OPP. BORA SERVICE STATION,G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM, REP. BY SRI SIMANTA KALITA, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHOUDHURY

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR G KAKOTI

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶15

ORDER

¶16

03.06.2020

¶17

Heard Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶18

Also heard Mr. G. Kakoti, learned counsel representing the respondent.

¶19

The order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1,

¶20

Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Money Suit No.307/2012 refusing to recall the earlier order dated 17.05.2018 whereby, cross-examination of the PW-1 was closed by the learned trial court, has been put under challenge in the present

¶21

Page No.# 2/3

¶22

proceeding.

¶23

It appears that the revision petitioner is the defendant in Money Suit No.307/2012. The suit was fixed for cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses on 17.05.2018. But on that date, since the defendant had failed to appear and cross-examine the PW-1, the learned trial court had closed the cossexamination of plaintiff’s witnesses by the order dated 17.05.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Petition No.524/19 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC with a prayer to recall the order dated 17.05.2018. However, the said petition was rejected by the learned court below by order dated 25.04.2019 inter-alia on the ground that the Order XVIII Rule 17 was not applicable to the facts of the case and that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was self-contradictory.

¶24

Mr. Choudhury submits that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with all seriousness but due to a communication gap his counsel he had failed to conduct the cross-examination of the PW-1 which had led to the order dated 17.05.2018. Under the circumstances, if an opportunity is not granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses (PWs) the same would result into serious miscarriage of justice.

¶25

I find from the record that the petitioner has not specifically assailed the order dated 17.05.2018 but his challenge in this revision petition is confined only to the order dated 25.04.2019 by means of which, the learned trial court had rejected the prayer to recall the order dated 17.05.2018.

¶26

Be that as it may, Mr. Kakoti, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that this is a very old pending matter and therefore, he would have no

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

objection if the petitioner is granted one opportunity to cross-examine the PWs by laying down a specific time-frame and default consequences in that regard.

¶29

Since the respondent’s counsel has not assailed the maintainability of the revision petition nor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel on merit, I am of the view that the explanation furnished by Mr. Choudhury deserves to be accepted. As such, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for ends of justice, I am of the view that the petitioner should be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the PWs.

¶30

Accordingly, the orders dated 17.05.2018 and 25.04.2019 passed by the learned court below are hereby set aside.

¶31

The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 22.06.2020 and produce a certified copy of this order. Upon such appearance the learned court below would fix a convenient date for cross-examination of the PWs by the petitioner/defendant.

¶32

It is made clear that if for any reason the petitioner/defendant fails to conduct the cross-examination of the PWs on the date fixed by the learned trial court, his right in respect thereof shall stand forfeited automatically and the learned court below would be at liberty to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law.

¶33

With the above observation, this revision petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Mukul Lahkar v. M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Lahkar v. M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Prakash Chand Vs Puspa Devi Jain and Anr.

Davraj Dutta Vs Smti. Alaka Goswami @ Aruna @ Alaka Bordoloi

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

Minati Paul Choudhury Vs Atindra Nath Dutta

Smti Bonita B. Dutta Vs M/S Magus Construction Private Limited and 5 Ors.

Uddhab Das @ Uddab Das Vs M/S May Fair Developers and Builders and Anr.