Allowed

Lalit Khullar v. Shish Pal

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2010CR/3193/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition against an order declining recall of a witness. The Court held Order 8 Rule 17 CPC empowers recall despite petitioner's negligence, citing interest of justice and absence of malafide.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court to grant only one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine witness Rajesh Gupta by fixing a date with effective intimation to both parties.

Lalit Khullar Vs Shish Pal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

CR No. 3193 of 2010(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 3193 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 21-09-2010

Lalit Khullar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Shish Pal

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present:Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate for Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

This revision petition is directed against order dated 9.2.2010 vide which prayer of the petitioner to recall respondent's witness for cross-examination was declined. This witness was earlier examined and the opportunity was allegedly given to the petitioner who did not crossexamine him.

¶14

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when the said witness was to be cross-examined, the arguing counsel in that case was not available and therefore due to oversight this opportunity has been wasted.

¶15

Prayer of the petitioner has been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of Order 8 Rule 17 CPC.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

¶17

CR No. 3193 of 2010(O&M) 2

¶18

the impugned order.

¶19

Order 8 Rule 17 CPC empowers the Court to recall any witness for further examination in the event of its being satisfied that the same is necessary and also relevant. The petitioner who pleads that the counsel was not available and due to oversight the opportunity to crossexamine has been wasted cannot be prejudiced when such a plea does not seem to be improbable.

¶20

Keeping in view the interest of justice and also the fact that the Court under Order 8 Rule 17 CPC is fully empowered to recall any witness for cross-examination and also keeping in view the fact that no malafide has been shown on the part of the petitioner except for negligence, I deem it appropriate to accept the present petition with a direction to the Trial Court that only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness Rajesh Gupta. The Trial Court shall fix a date for the occasion by giving effective intimation to

¶21

both the parties.

¶22

September 21, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Lalit Khullar v. Shish Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Khullar v. Shish Pal

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

Didar Singh and Anr. Vs Punna Singh and Ors.

Suresh Kumar Uppal Vs Jiwan Singh and Ors.

Om Parkash Pandey Vs Jiwan Singh and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Harcharan Singh etc. Vs Ram Singh