The Court allowed applications to reopen evidence for cross-examining plaintiff’s witnesses PW-1 and PW-2. The court held that while the right to cross-examine must be recognized, mere change of counsel cannot justify undue delay in trial proceedings.
Applications allowed; witnesses to be cross-examined by 19.04.2024; copies of affidavits to be handed over.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
A.Nos. 1965 & 1966 of 2024 And C.S.No. 393 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Both these applications have been filed seeking to reopen the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 for the purpose of cross examining P.W.1 and PW-2.
be worn once, taken away and another shirt to be worn. It is complained that the present counsel for the defacto complainant is the fourth advocate. The learned counsels must also realise their responsibility to the Court and discharge their professional duties by cross examining the witness.
change of counsel, papers have been served on the fresh counsel and thereafter again and again, there is a demand for copies of records.
2
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
vsg
08.04.2024
A.Nos. 1965 & 1966 of 2024
And C.S.No. 393 of 2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether applications to reopen evidence for cross-examination due to change of counsel can be allowed.
Whether mere change of counsel justifies protraction of proceedings.
Defendant
Plaintiff/Defacto complainant
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
