The court found the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. It allowed four civil revision petitions and directed the lower court to allow the petitioner to peremptorily cross-examine PW-1 and DW-1 on a fixed date.
All four applications for reopening the suit and cross-examining PW-1 and DW-1 were allowed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 of 2014
Date : 11-7-2014
C.R.P.No.1930 of 2014 Between : Harikishan Agarwal .. Petitioner And G. Krishna Reddy and others .. Respondents
Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri T. Sharath Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Sri M.A.K. Mukheed
The Court made the following :
COMMON ORDER:
These four Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common suit and hence they are heard and being disposed of together.
I have heard Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Respondent No.1 has filed the above mentioned suit for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner got himself impleaded as defendant No.4 in the said suit. Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination as PW-1. By order dated 3-122013, the lower Court has appointed Mr. P. Trivikram, as Advocate-Commissioner to record the cross-examination of PW-1. It is not in dispute that on the same day, the Advocate-Commissioner has recorded the crossexamination of PW-1 made by the counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 who are defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is also not in dispute that the counsel for the petitioner has requested for an adjournment for cross-examining PW-1. The Advocate-
Commissioner, without giving further opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner, submitted his report before the lower Court. On 10-12-2013, respondent No.1 reported no further evidence. The lower Court has closed the evidence on the plaintiff’s side and adjourned the case for the defendants’ evidence. Subsequently, the evidence of defendant Nos.1 to 3 was completed. It is at this stage that the petitioner filed I.A.No.454/2014 for reopening the suit and I.A.No.455/2014 for cross-examination of PW-1. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.460/2014 for reopening the case and I.A.No.461/2014 for permitting him to cross-examine DW-1. By two separate but similar orders dated 24-4-2014, the lower Court has dismissed all these applications.
The only aspect that needs to be considered in these Revision Petitions is whether the petitioner had fair opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses?
From the facts noted above, this Court is satisfied that at least in respect of PW-1, the petitioner was denied proper opportunity of cross-examining the said witness. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view. Accordingly, all the four applications are allowed. The lower Court is directed to fix 12-8-2014 for cross-examination of PW-1 and DW-1, on which date the petitioner, either himself or through his counsel, shall peremptorily cross-examine the said witnesses. For this purpose, both PW-1 and DW-1 shall be
present on 12-8-2014, for being cross-examined, and also on 13-8-2014 if the cross-examination spills over. It is made clear that if PW-1 and DW-1 are present on 12-8-2014 and the counsel for the petitioner fails to cross-examine them for any reason whatsoever, the cross-examination shall be closed and no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions, CRPMP No.2717 of 2014 in C.R.P.No.1930 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 11-7-2014 AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses PW-1 and DW-1.
Whether the revision petitions should be allowed to grant that opportunity.
Harikishan Agarwal
G. Krishna Reddy
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
