The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal allowance of further cross-examination and the admissibility of evidence during trial proceedings, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

I.A. stands disposed of.

O.A. No. 235 of 2015 and I.A. No. 12650 of 2015 (stay)

2. This chamber appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the order of the Joint Registrar dated 16.4.2015. The appellant/plaintiff impugns the order dated 16.4.2015 which has allowed further cross-examination of the witness PW-1 after re-examination was done by the plaintiff of the witness PW-1. Plaintiff/appellant contends that the defendant/respondent be not permitted to put questions to the witness PW-1 and which will be in the nature of cross-examination after re-examination of the witness PW-1.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has argued that though under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 after re-examination is done further questions can be put by the other side to the witness, however, this power to put further questions by the defendant is wrongly being exercised in the facts of the present case. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on paras 16 to 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rammi Alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 649 and which paras read as under:-

“16. The very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act outlines the amplitude of re-examination. It reads thus:

“138……………

Direction of re-examination – The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.”

17. There is an erroneous impression that re-examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the only function of the re-examiner. If the party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. The Public Prosecutor should formulate his questions for that purpose. Explanation may be required either when ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited during cross-examination or even otherwise. If the Public Prosecutor feels that certain answers require more elucidation from the witness he has the freedom and the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose, subject of course to the control of the Court in accordance with the other provisions. But the Court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities alone which arose in cross-examination.

18. Even if the Public Prosecutor feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness he can do so, in which case the only requirement is that he must secure permission of the Court. If the Court thinks that such new matters are necessary for proving any material fact, courts must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions.”

4. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff is misconceived because nowhere in the aforesaid paras 16 to 18 it is stated that further cross-examination of a witness is not permitted after re-examination of the witness. In fact, the language of Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 itself specifically states that with the permission of court, a witness can be further cross-examined. If re-examination under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has to be liberally allowed as per the ratio of Rammi Alias Rameshwar’s case (supra) cited by the plaintiff, then, the further cross-examination also will have to be liberally allowed applying the same ratio and logic.

5. In my opinion, what will apply in the facts of the present case for dismissing this O.A. is the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Pa