Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Divya Girish, W/o. Shiva Prakash Girish – Appellant
Versus
A. Ligoury D’Mello, S/o. Late Salvodor D'Mello – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)
The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 19.06.2024 by which the concerned Court rejects application Nos.18 and 19 seeking recommencement of the evidence from the stage of defense evidence to the stage of cross examination and also recall of PW.1 for further cross examination.
2. Heard Sri.X.M.Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for Sri.Vinay N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
(a) The petitioner is defendant No.11. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Defendant No.11 is the wife of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs institutes a commercial suit in Commercial O.S.No.352/2020 for the purpose of recovery of money. The backdrop of the claim is that the plaintiffs enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with defendant No.11, petitioner and other respondents for establishment of the hospitality projects in trade name "Purlieu" and "Moonglade".
(b) Dispute between the two with regard to recovery of money leads the plaintiffs to the Commercial Court in Com.O.S.No.352/2020. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the money
The court emphasized the need for timely proceedings and ruled that an absence of a written statement does not negate the right to cross-examine, but delaying tactics signify abuse of process.
The duty of the court is to take necessary steps to get to the truth of the matter and decide cases based on relevant material, while cautioning against routine use of the power to recall witnesses a....
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is discretionary and should not be used to exploit evidentiary gaps; it must prioritize justice and not disrupt trial proceedings.
Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in diff....
The authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
The court emphasized the importance of completing cross-examination within the time frame set by the High Court and allowed two additional days for cross-examination as a special case.
The court balanced equities and granted a final opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine PW3, subject to conditions, despite not approving their conduct.
The right to a fair trial is paramount, and courts must ensure that all relevant evidence is considered, even if it requires recalling witnesses after significant delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. allow a Court to summon a witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. T....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
