This is an oral order dismissing an application for expunging Witness DW9's evidence in a title suit. The court rejected the argument that evidence should be expunged because it turned against the applicant during cross-examination.
Application for expunging the evidence of DW9 in Title Suit No.85 of 1993 dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1226 of 2018
======================================================
Md. Qaishar Azam @ Md. Quaisar Azam, son of Late Zainul Abedin, resident of Village- Daniyalpur, P.O.+P.S. and Sub Division- Teghra, Pargana Malki, District- Begusarai.
... ... Defendant/Petitioner
Versus
… ...Plaintiff/Respondents 1st Set
All residents of Village- Daniyalpur, P.O.+ P.S. and Sub Division Teghra, Pargana Malki, District Begusarai.
... ... Defendants/Respondents 2nd Set
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 20-11-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this civil miscellaneous petition against the order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the learned Munsif, Teghra, Begusarai in Title Suit No.85 of 1993 by which the petition of the petitioner-defendant for expunging the evidence of DW9 has been dismissed.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1226 of 2018(2) dt.20-11-2018 2/2
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the evidence of DW9 on affidavit but DW9 gave evidence contrary to the case of the defendants and, therefore, the evidence of DW9 should have been expunged but I find no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. DW9 in cross-examination divulged certain facts contrary to the interest of the defendants and on this ground the evidence of DW9 cannot be expunged.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this civil miscellaneous petition and the same is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
S.KUMAR/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the evidence of Witness DW9 should be expunged since it became contrary to the defendants' case during cross-examination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Qaishar Azam
Bibi Habiba Waris
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
