The court upheld the trial court's discretion in denying further cross-examination, stating no compelling reasons were shown by the petitioner for such a request.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ JAIN, J.

1. Petitioner Mr. Rehman Aftab Alam has filed a suit against his wife (since divorced) seeking recovery of Rs. 6,66,500/-.

2. The case is stated to be at the stage of final arguments.

3. During the pendency of the above said suit, plaintiff (petitioner herein) moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to further cross-examine DW-1 Smt. Salma Bano.

4. As per above application, his assertion was that the case was earlier fixed for cross-examination of defendant on 23.01.2018, and that he wanted to cross-examine her on some relevant aspects but the learned Court did not allow him to put various relevant questions and discharged the witness, in a hurry. He contended that due to incomplete cross-examination, if the permission is not granted, he would suffer immensely as the eventual decision might be, therefore, also against him. It is also submitted that petitioner has now engaged a counsel and would conduct further cross-examination through his such counsel.

5. All such contentions have been refuted by Ms. Khan, learned DHCLSC counsel for respondent. She submits that the petitioner is merely interested in delaying the disposal of his own suit and his above said request was totally misconceived. She also contends that the petitioner is rather in a bad habit of maligning every Judicial Officer and did not even spare the Successor Court. It is also submitted that petitioner himself had requested learned Trial Court to permit him to cross-examine DW-1 and on the basis of such request only, the Court had permitted him and the entire cross-examination was conducted smoothly and there was never any interference or abrupt closure, as claimed by the petitioner.

6. Trial Court record has been received and this Court has gone through the same.

7. Let me, straightway, come to the application which the petitioner had moved on 23.01.2018.

8. On that day, it seems quite obvious that petitioner had, himself, come armed with a typed-application wherein he mentioned that his counsel was busy in other Court and was unable to appear and, therefore, he (plaintiff) may be allowed to cross-examine the defendant’s witnesses, to save the precious time of Court. It may also be mentioned that though the year was typed but the date and month had been filed up in hand in such application.

9. The order dated 23.01.2018 also needs to be seen. It reads as under: -

“Pr: Plaintiff in person.

DW-1 Salma Bano with Mr. D.P. Katyan, Adv for all defendants.

Plaintiff has moved an application seeking permission to cross examine the defendants. Heard. Allowed.

DW-1 Salma Bano further cross examined and discharged.

Put up on 30.01.2018 for R D E.

Sd/-

(G.N. PANDEY)

ADJ/MACT (PILOT COURT)/23.01.2018

At 11:45 A M

At this stage Mr. Rajkumar Bhartiya, Adv. On behalf of plaintiff has appeared and submits that he is no more as counsel for the plaintiff as he has returned the file as he was appointed as counsel for plaintiff through DLSA.

In view of the above submissions, Mr. Rajkumar Bhartiya, Adv. has discharged from the present case.

Put up on 30.01.2018 as the date and purpose already fixed.

Sd/-

(G.N. PANDEY)

ADJ/MACT(PILOT COURT)/23.01.2018

10. Thus, it is very clear that well before 11:45 A.M., the cross-examination was over.

11. Such order sheet does not reflect anywhere that the learned Trial Court had forced the plaintiff to conduct the cross-examination. This becomes important to mention as the case of the petitioner is also to the effect that he had been forced by the court to conduct cross-examination. He had made a complaint against the learned officer, in which he had alleged that when he told the court that his counsel was not available, learned judicial officer angrily shouted upon him and threatened to impose cost and, therefore, he himself conducted the cross. Fact remains, in any such situation, he could have conducted cross-examination, without moving any application. It really looks surprising that after suc