This petition challenges the Civil Judge's rejection of an application to recall a prior order permitting cross-examination of a process server. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's decision to allow proper adjudication of a revision petition.
CMP dismissed; parties directed to cooperate for early disposal of the pending C.M.A.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 1050 OF 2022
Rabindra Mohan Parida and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus-
Parsuram Parida and others
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 15.11.2022
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
proceeding, the process server has been examined as C.W. 1. He has also been cross-examined by the present Petitioners. But, on the date fixed, the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties in the suit could not cross-examine C.W.1, for which they filed an application to recall C.W.1 for cross-examination. The said application was allowed vide order dated 8th March, 2019 under Annexure-7. Subsequently, the Defendants-Petitioners filed an application to recall the said order, which has been rejected vide order under Annexure-9, which is impugned herein. Hence, this CMP has been filed.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
examined as witness on behalf of the Court as C.W.1. It also reveals that the present Petitioners have cross-examined the said witness. As the process server has been examined as Court witness, the Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties has every right to crossexamine him. On the date fixed for cross-examination, the Opposite Parties could not cross-examine the said C.W.1, for which an application was filed to recall the said witness for cross-examination. Learned trial Court allowed the said application by permitting the Opposite Parties to cross-examine C.W.1. Subsequently, an application was filed by the Petitioners to recall the said order.
ms
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interference the order rejecting the application to recall the permission granted to the opposite parties for cross-examining a court witness.
Whether the trial court passed the impugned order without reasons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rabindra Mohan Parida and others
Parsuram Parida and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
