Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Vaneeta Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Sehgal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the following three orders passed by the ADJ-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed in Civil Suit No.611999/2016:
(i) Order dated 16th April, 2021 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC), for placing on record complaint dated 11th November, 2014 against the petitioners' previous counsel for not conducting proper cross-examination of the respondent's/plaintiff's witness.
(ii) Order dated 16th April, 2021 dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for recalling respondent's witnesses namely respondent himself, Jai Bhagwan, Charan Dass and Bijender Kumar for further cross- examination.
(iii) Order dated 16th April, 2021, only partly allowing the application of the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC for taking on record documents filed by the petitioners/defendants.
2. After hearing the parties, judgment was reserved in the matter on 17th September, 2021. Both parties have filed written submissions which have been taken on record.
3. The
Litigants are bound by the conduct of their advocates, and CPC provisions cannot be used to remedy previous evidential deficiencies.
Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in diff....
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC enables Court to recall any witness to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to evidence led by parties.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended to clarify doubts and not to fill omissions in evidence or to allow for further elaboration on left-out issues.
The court established that the power to recall witnesses is discretionary and should only be exercised in the interest of justice, not to remedy prior omissions.
The court established that the discretionary power to recall witnesses should not be used to fill evidentiary gaps and must be exercised with caution to prevent abuse of process.
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
