Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Standard Chartered Bank – Appellant
Versus
Supreme Infratech Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CM(M) 221 of 2023
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Exemption - Application seeking exemption from filing legible copies of the annexures - Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the order passed in a civil suit whereby the Trial Court closed the opportunity to cross-examine a witness. The petitioner argued that the counsel's unavailability was not considered, and the Trial Court rejected the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in a perfunctory manner. The respondent defended the reasons stated in the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the opportunity to cross-examine should not have been denied unless there was absolute laxity on the part of the petitioner/defendant. The petition was allowed, subject to a cost to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness and the procedural impropriety alleged by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to cross-examine is an indelible right of a party before the Civil Court, and unless there has been absolute laxity on the part of the petitioner/defendant, the opportunity to cross-examine should not have been denied.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, subject to a cost to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff, and the pending application was also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 6610/2023 (Exemption)
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing legible copies of the annexures.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 221/2023 & CM APPL. 6609/2023 (Stay)
4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in CS DJ 79017/2016 titled `M/s Supreme Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. Standard Chartered Bank' whereby the learned Trial Court has closed the opportunity to cross-examine witness PW-1 namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, who was stated to be present on the date when the impugned order was passed.
5. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason of the counsel being busy before this Court was already made before the learned Trial Court but was not considered and in a perfunctory manner, the Trial Court has rejected the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the examination of PW-1 was subject to the payment of costs, which was imposed upon the respondent/plaintiff and that the said cost imposed upon the respondent/plaintiff has not been paid till date. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the examination of PW-1 could not have taken place for that reason either.
7. Mr. Swetabh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent defends the reasons stated in the impugned order and submits that there is no procedural impropriety for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the opportunity to cross-examination, unless there has been an absolute laxity on the part of the petitioner/defendant, ought not to have been denied inasmuch as the right to cross-examine is an indelible right of party before the Civil Court.
9. In that view of the matter, the petition stands allowed, however, subject to a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff on or before the next date of hearing fixed before the learned Trial Court i.e.27.03.2023.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending application also stands disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination and ensuring expeditious disposal of the trial.
The interest of substantial justice should prevail over procedural law when there is a conflict between the two.
In the interest of justice, the court may grant an opportunity for further cross-examination if it deems necessary, even if an initial application is rejected.
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
