Revision petition challenging order permitting completion of witness cross-examination. Single-judge oral order dismissing impugned order by trial court.
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.
C. R. No. 8119 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : January 02, 2012
Vinod Kumar .... Petitioner
Vs.
Dalip Singh and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. S. K. Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Vinod Kumar – defendant no.2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka thereby partly allowing application Annexure P-1 moved by respondent no.1-plaintiff for recalling the plaintiff for further examination and cross-examination.
The plaintiff alleged that some important questions were omitted in his examination-in-chief by his counsel, for which he is required to re-enter the witness-box. It was also alleged that cross-examination of the plaintiff as witness was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants and later on, evidence of the plaintiff was closed without
C. R. No. 8119 of 2011
2
recording remaining cross-examination of the plaintiff, and therefore, further cross-examination of the plaintiff is also required to be conducted.
The defendants, in the reply, opposed the application. It was denied that cross-examination of the plaintiff was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. It was alleged that the plaintiff himself abstained from his cross-examination.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-3, partly allowed the plaintiff's application and permitted completion of remaining cross-examination of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the plaintiff himself did not appear for his remaining cross-examination in spite of many opportunities. The contention merits summary rejection. On pointed inquiry, counsel for the petitioner failed to refer to any such averment in the instant revision petition or to any material on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, perusal of the impugned order reveals that examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 26.09.2009 and his cross-examination was deferred by the trial court on account of Lok Adalat. The plaintiff again appeared in the witness-box on 01.12.2009 for purpose of cross-examination. He was partly crossexamined, but his further cross-examination was deferred on request of
C. R. No. 8119 of 2011
3
counsel for the defendants, who wanted to peruse some receipts. Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel inadvertently closed the plaintiff's evidence without recording of further cross-examination of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, trial court has rightly permitted completion of remaining cross-examination of the plaintiff. Part cross-examination of the plaintiff was deferred on request of counsel for the defendants. In spite thereof, in their reply Annexure P-2, the defendants wrongly pleaded that the crossexamination was not deferred on the request of their counsel. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiff entered the witness-box and made statement of examination-in-chief. His cross-examination was deferred by the trial court on account of Lok Adalat. The plaintiff again entered the witness-box for his cross-examination. He was partly cross-examined, but his remaining cross-examination was deferred on request of counsel for defendants himself. Consequently, application of plaintiff has been rightly allowed partly for completion of his remaining cross-examination. There is no error, much less illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court in permitting the plaintiff to appear for his remaining cross-examination.
The instant revision petition is completely misconceived and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
January 02, 2012
monika
Vinod Kumar
Dalip Singh
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
