Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Blue Horizon Hotels Private Limited, Represented By Its Director, Sri. A.C. Sachin Raju – Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Rose Real Estate Private Limited, Represented By Its Authorized Director Rohan Agarwal – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel Sri. H.S.Dwarkanath on behalf of learned counsel Sri.R.A.Chandrasekhara Reddy for the petitioner and Learned counsel Sri.Ajeesh kumar for caveator/respondent No.1.
2. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6/defendant Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed as no relief is sought against them.
3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the Commercial Court aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing the applications filed in IA.No.22 and IA.No. 23 in O.S.No.25855/2017 filed under Section 151 CPC and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC respectively, to further cross examine PW1 and recall the order dated 31.10.2023 and reopen the evidence of the plaintiff.
4. Upon contest, these two applications came to be rejected by the learned judge of the Commercial Court, holding that no proper reasons are made out by the defendant No.1 for the purpose of further cross- examination on certain documents, and he has not given any important instructions on the relevant issues for cross-examination of PW1. The Commercial Court has also come to a conclusion that it is based upon vague g
The court affirmed the right to further cross-examine a witness under specific conditions, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines to prevent delays in the resolution of cases.
The court affirmed the essential right to cross-examine witnesses fully, emphasizing no counsel should be compelled to conclude cross-examination in one sitting without justified reasons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Commercial Court cannot permit a party to lead fresh evidence after the matter is posted for arguments if the procedural requirements under ....
The court upheld the denial of video evidence in cross-examination due to non-compliance with disclosure rules and failure to provide an authenticity certificate as required under Section 65B of the ....
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.
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
