IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Kamlesh Verma & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Madhu Verma - Respondent
CM(M) No. 454 of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2023
Exemption - Recall of Orders - The court allowed exemption subject to all just exceptions and gave directions for expeditious disposal of the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their application seeking recall of orders that closed the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to lead defendant's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on a specified date and allowed the petitioner to examine two witnesses on her behalf, with strict instructions to avoid adjournments. The court also imposed a cost on the petitioner and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Issues: Challenge to dismissal of application seeking recall of orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for expeditious trial proceedings and the petitioner's request for recall of orders.
Final Decision: The petition along with pending application was disposed of, and the Trial Court was directed to ensure expeditious disposal of the matter.
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 13554/2023 (for exemption)
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 454/2023 & CM APPL. 13553/2023 (for stay)
3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.02.2023 in CS SCJ 994/18 titled as “Madhu Verma @ Madhubala vs. Kamlesh Verma And Anr.”, whereby the application of the petitioner/ defendant seeking recall of the orders dated 26.04.2022 and 08.06.2022, virtue whereof the opportunity to cross examine the respondent/ plaintiff’s witnesses and the opportunity to lead defendant’s evidence of the petitioner was also closed, was dismissed.
4. Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties on instructions submit that in order to ensure that there is no delay in the proceedings in the trial, an order giving appropriate directions be passed by this Court.
6. With the consent of the parties, the following directions are passed :-
(ii) Petitioner/ defendant is permitted to examine two witnesses on her behalf, dates whereof would be specified by the learned Trial Court as per the convenience of the counsel of both the parties.
(iii) The two witnesses who would be produced on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant, shall be examined and cross-examined on two dates, which may be fixed by the learned Trial Court. No further adjournments whatsoever would be granted by the Trial Court in respect of the two defendant’s witnesses.
7. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that no adjournment is sought or granted on the said three dates.
8. The aforesaid indulgence is being shown by this Court, subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/ defendant to the respondent/ plaintiff on or before 24.03.2023 before the Trial Court itself.
9. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.
The denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a witness is a violation of natural justice and could have a deleterious effect on the petitioner's stand before the trial court.
Parties to litigation should be afforded full opportunity to lead evidence and should not be deprived of such valuable rights on mere technicalities.
The correct procedure for examining witnesses and the right to cross-examine a witness should not be automatically closed if the witness is not available.
The right to cross-examine is an indelible right of a party before the Civil Court, and should not be denied unless there has been absolute laxity on the part of the petitioner/defendant.
The court has the discretion to allow the recall of a witness for cross-examination, but may impose conditions to expedite the trial.
In cases where the truth of a transaction is at issue, the court may allow further cross-examination of a witness, even if a document has been admitted, to ensure the interests of justice are served.
The genuine difficulty faced by a party's counsel may justify granting additional opportunities in legal proceedings.
The court's decision was influenced by the interests of justice, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and the limitations on cross-examination.
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court should consider the reasons for adjournments and afford opportunities to parties to lead evidence, especially when the delay is not attributab....
The right to cross-examine a witness and the discretion of the court to grant further opportunities for cross-examination.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.