In a civil revision petition, the High Court rejected the proposal to recall a witness for further cross-examination in a partition suit after evidence closure, dismissing the revision due to lack of reasoned affidavit and affirmed the trial court view.
Civil revision petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1254 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioners filed O.S.No.28 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The recording of evidence of the parties was concluded and the suit was posted to 02.02.2011 for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.141 of 2011 with a prayer to recall D.W.1 for further crossexamination. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 11.02.2011. Hence, this revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is bereft of any reasons, on account of which the petitioners intended to further cross-examine D.W.1. With the closure of evidence, valuable rights accrue to the respective parties. It is only when the party is prevented or precluded from taking any further steps of cross-examination, that there exists possibility for the Court to recall such a witness. Time and again, this Court held that the aspects, on which a party proposes to further cross-examine a witness, whose evidence is already closed, must be clearly stated. As observed
earlier, in this case, the petitioners did not state any reason whatever for recalling D.W.1. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. The suit was identified for disposal and it cannot wait any longer.
Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________ 01.07.2011 Jsu
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P.No.1254 of 2011
Date: 01.07.2011
JSU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application to recall a witness for further cross-examination after closure of evidence.
Whether the affidavit supporting the application to recall a witness was sufficient to justify the recall.
Whether the civil revision petition for recall of witness should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
