Allowed

Nachhattar Singh Anr. v. Kashmira Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2010CR/2084/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order dismissing an application to recall a witness for cross-examination, noting the record contained no indication that the witness was officially given up.

What did the court decide?

The application for recalling the witness Banta Singh for cross-examination was allowed and the trial court was directed to recall him.

Nachhattar Singh Anr. Vs Kashmira Ram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No.2084 of 2000 : 1 :

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶3

Date of decision: 08.02.2010

¶4

Nachhattar Singh and another

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Kashmira Ram @ Kashmira Singh

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶10

Present: Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents.

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

¶12

None appears on behalf of the respondent despite service.

¶13

I have heard Mr.Amit Rawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶14

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application of the plaintiff-petitioners for recalling Banta Singh, PW-4, for the purpose of his cross-examination has been dismissed. It has been recorded in the impugned order that said Banta Singh, PW-4, appeared and his examination-in-chief was recorded and when he was to be cross-examined, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners made a statement giving up Banta Singh, PW-4, on

¶15

CR No.2084 of 2000 : 2 :

¶16

22.11.1999 and thereafter the statement of the plaintiff was recorded. It is however, observed in the impugned order that now the case is fixed for the evidence of the defendant, the case being pending since 1985, the application is said to be without any merit and ordered to be dismissed.

¶17

From the inter-locutory orders passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that examination-in-chief of Banta Singh, PW-4, was recorded on 30.8.1999 and the case was adjourned to 15.9.1999 for the evidence of the plaintiffs subject to last opportunity. Banta Singh, PW4, did not appear on the said date. He was summoned through Bailable Warrants. The case was further adjourned to 08.10.1999, 22.10.1999. On both these occasions, Bailable Warrants could not be served upon, Banta Singh, PW-4. The next date was fixed for 22.11.1999. On the said date, the statement of the plaintiff was recorded and his crossexamination was deferred subject to last opportunity. The case again came to be adjourned on 09.12.1999. On 13.12.1999, the next date, cross-examination of the plaintiff was recorded. On this date, the plaintiff-petitioners made an application for recalling Banta Singh, PW-4, for cross-examination. It is this application which has been decided vide the impugned order.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Banta Singh was the only witness relating to the Will. His examination-inchief has already been recorded and it was only at the time of his

¶19

CR No.2084 of 2000 : 3 :

¶20

cross-examination that the statement of Banta Singh was deferred and later not recorded. The learned trial Court has referred to the order dated 22.11.1999 giving up Banta Singh.

¶21

From the perusal of the order dated 22.11.1999, it is revealed that there is nothing in the order to suggest that Banta Singh witness was given up by the plaintiffs. The order simply records recording of examination-in-chief of the plaintiff and case deferred for his cross-examination. How and in what circumstances the learned trial Court has recorded that the witness was given up, is not evident from the record.

¶22

Be that as it may, there is another important aspect of the matter. The examination-in-chief of Banta Singh has been recorded. If cross-examination of a witness is not recorded then what will be status of the statement made in examination-in-chief, is required to be seen. His examination-in-chief was duly recorded. If a witness is given up, it will be difficult for the Court either to ignore the statement or to rely upon the same without cross-examination.

¶23

In view of these circumstances and the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the witness was given up by the plaintiffs or their counsel, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for recalling Banta Singh for crossexamination is allowed.

¶24

CR No.2084 of 2000 : 4 :

¶25

The trial Court is directed to recall the witness (Banta Singh, PW-4) for the purposes of Cross-examination. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 08.04.2010.

¶26

The trial Court is directed to summon the the respondent before proceeding further in the matter.

¶27

08.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE

¶28

Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO

Nachhattar Singh Anr. v. Kashmira Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachhattar Singh Anr. v. Kashmira Ram

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

Vijay Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pale Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply Vs M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Milap Chand Vs State of Haryana

Pritam Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.