Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Sept 2010CR/343/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a revision petition allowing only one opportunity to cross-examine witness Sat Pal, citing Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, noting no malafide intent despite the petitioner's negligence regarding counsel availability.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Trial Court to grant one opportunity to recall witness Sat Pal for cross-examination and fix a date.

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

CR No. 343 of 2010(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 343 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 21-09-2010

Vijay Kumar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present:Mr.Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶14

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2010 vide which the prayer of the petitioner to recall one Sat Pal for cross-examination was declined. This witness was earlier examined and the opportunity was allegedly given to the petitioner who did not crossexamine him.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 18 Rule 17 CPC.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

¶18

CR No. 343 of 2010(O&M) 2

¶19

the impugned order.

¶20

Order 18 Rule 17 CPC enables 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 cross-examine has been wasted cannot be prejudiced when such a plea does not seem to be improbable. In any eventuality, the facts of the case reveal that the evidence of the respondent concluded in the year 2009 even though the suit was initiated in the year 2000.

¶21

Keeping in view the interest of justice and also the fact that the Court under Order 18 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 Sat Pal. The Trial Court shall fix a date for the occasion by giving effective intimation to both the parties.

¶22

September 21, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Vijay Kumar v. Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

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.

Lalit Khullar Vs Shish Pal

Vijay Kumar Vs Gurcharan Singh Dhamotia & Ors.

Harcharan Singh etc. Vs Ram Singh