Back
M. S. SONAK
Prabhakar Xembu Bhandari – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Ms. Agni points out that contesting respondents are respondents nos.10 & 11. Respondent no.10, Mr. Prakash Uttam Naik, is present in the Court. He states that Smt. Anuradha Prakash Naik - respondent no.11 is his wife.
4. Mr. Prakash Uttam Naik states that he has no objection if the petition is allowed. He has also tendered in writing that his wife and himself have no complaint if the petition is allowed.
5. The learned Trial Judge has, by order dtd. 4/4/2022, closed the cross-examination of DW1. By further order dtd. 27/4/2022, the learned Trial Judge has refused to recall the order dtd. 4/4/2022.
6. The learned Trial Judge has observed that there were directions from the High Court for disposal of the suit in a timebound manner. The learned Trial Judge has observed that adjournments were applied for on two occasions in the past. Learned Trial Judge has also observed that the Advocate appeared before other Courts in other matters.
7. Although the Trial Judge may have been justified in making the impu
The court's decision was influenced by the interest of justice, medical certificates, and assurances from the petitioners, leading to the setting aside of impugned orders and granting liberty to cros....
The court has the discretion to allow the recall of a witness for cross-examination, but may impose conditions to expedite the trial.
The court balanced the equities by considering the diligent prosecution of the case and the need for travel, setting aside the order subject to the payment of costs and the respondent making herself ....
Payment of costs imposed only can be considered to be ‘special circumstances’ which were beyond knowledge and control of petitioner/defendant under Order 17 rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code.
The court upheld the importance of substantial justice over technical procedural defaults, allowing an additional opportunity for witness cross-examination to uphold fairness in litigation.
The main legal point established is that the right to cross-examine should be balanced with the circumstances of the party's absence and the prevailing legal framework, such as Covid-19 guidelines, t....
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.
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
