Back
2015 Supreme(Cal) 375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, J.
SHRI SHRIKANT MANTRI – Appellant
VS.
SAVITRI DEVI MANTRI & ORS. – Respondent
G.A.2150 of 2015, EOS No.41 of 1999
Decided On : 28-8-2015
For the plaintiff : Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Samrat Sen.
For the defendant : Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Mr. R. Mitra, Mr. S. Mitra.
The scope and ambit of re-examination of a witness is limited to clarifying matters arising out of the cross-examination, and new matters can be introduced with the court's permission.
Headnote:
RE-EXAMINATION - Testamentary Proceeding - Probate of Will - Application for re-examination of witness - Permissible scope and ambit of re-examination - Clarification of matters arising out of cross-examination - Introduction of new matters with permission of court - Court's discretion in allowing re-examination.
Fact of the Case:
Application for re-examination of a witness in a testamentary proceeding for the grant of probate of a will executed by Late Kamla Devi Mantri. The witness, Pradeep Kumar Jain, was cross-examined by defendants to suggest that he had no personal involvement in dealing with the tax files of the deceased and the Mantri family. The applicant sought to re-examine the witness to clarify his involvement and introduce documents to establish his personal dealing with the tax files.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the re-examination was permissible to the extent that it sought to clarify matters arising out of the cross-examination, including the witness's involvement in the tax files of the deceased and the Mantri family. The court allowed the introduction of three documents disclosed during the cross-examination to establish the witness's involvement. However, the court limited the re-examination to these specific matters and did not allow the introduction of new matters unrelated to the cross-examination.
Issues: 1. Whether re-examination of a witness is permissible to clarify matters arising out of cross-examination? 2. Whether new matters can be introduced during re-examination without the court's permission? 3. Whether the court has discretion in allowing re-examination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Re-examination is permissible to explain matters referred to in cross-examination that are capable of being construed unfavorably to the witness's own side. 2. New matters can be introduced during re-examination with the court's permission. 3. The court has the discretion to allow re-examination and determine the scope and ambit of such re-examination.
Final Decision: The court allowed the re-examination of the witness to the extent that it sought to clarify matters arising out of the cross-examination, including the witness's involvement in the tax files of the deceased and the Mantri family. The court also allowed the introduction of three documents disclosed during the cross-examination to establish the witness's involvement. However, the court limited the re-examination to these specific matters and did not allow the introduction of new matters unrelated to the cross-examination.
Soumen Sen, J.:
This is an application for re-examination of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, the third witness on behalf of the plaintiff in a testamentary proceeding for the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament dated November 12, 1990 executed by Late Kamla Devi Mantri.
During the course of his examination the applicant stated that he had accompanied his father Late Kamal Kumar Jain to the residence of the said deceased on 12th November, 1990 and was personally present at the time of execution and attestation of the said Will. During the course of his examination-in-chief, the applicant-witness has tendered 16 number of documents marked as Exhibit H, H-1, I, I-1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 and R which, according to the petitioner, would demonstrate, establish and prove that Jain & Co., the firm in which his father Late Kamal Kumar Jain; his brother Ashok Kumar Jain and he were partners at the material time had dealt with the tax files of the said deceased as well as other members of the Mantri family.
It is submitted that during his cross-examination it was insinuated and suggested on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) that Pradeep Kumar Jain in his professional capacity, had personally not dealt with such files and nothing whatsoever to do with the tax files of the Mantris, particularly the tax files of the deceased. The application refers to Question Nos.2, 3 & 9 to 24 of the examination-in-chief and Question Nos.71, 72, 76, 88, 89-96, 122, 124 and 223 of the cross-examination of the witness which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Examination-in-chief
2. What do you do now?/ I am practicing as a Chartered Accountant and I am a senior partner of Jain & Co., Chartered Accountants.
3. Since when you have been associated with the firm, Jain & Co., Chartered Accountants?/ Since 1st April, 1974 and at that time I was about 18 years old and I was under my father, who was the sole proprietor of Jain & Co. Chartered Accountants at that time, and I became a Chartered Accountant on 1st April, 1984.
9. What was the nature of your work in the firm in or about 1990?/ In the year 1990, our firm was basically engaged in tax and audit works and my father, in fact, was suffering from rheumatic pains since many years and on that account, I used to accompany him to various statutory authorities or visit to our clients. In the year 1990, I have almost had 16 years’ office experience and about 6 or 7 years as a Chartered Accountant in the firm.
10. Can you name some of the clients of the firm who worked with you and with whom your father also worked?/ We did tax and audit works of various clients out of which I did audit work of Birla’s also and we also handled the income tax and wealth tax files of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri as well as we looked into various accounts of family members also.
11. (shown a document, which is disclosed at serial no.2 of plaintiff’s Judge’s Brief of Documents) what is this document about?/ This is the acknowledgement of filing of the wealth tax return of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri. This document was filed on 6th March, 1991. This is the original acknowledgement of filing of the wealth tax return.
12. Did you find any signature at the bottom right hand corner of the document just over the printed words “Signature of Assessee’?/ Yes, the signature is of Smt. Kamala Devi Mantri.
13. How are you able to identify this signature to be that of Late Kamala Devi Mantri?/ In fact, we were handling her income tax and wealth tax files and in course of which various documents were sent to her and used to come back. On the basis of which her signatures is identified. A responsible officer from my office used to go to her residence for getting the income tax and wealth tax returns that were to be filed annually for her signature and brought back to our office.
14. Are the contents of this document true and correct?/ Yes.
15. Was this document signed by Late Kamala Devi Mantri in the usual cours
