Advocates Appeared:
Chitranshul Sinha, Adv., Sonali Khanna, Adv.

In this case, the court emphasized that cross-examination of witnesses, including doctors, is not a routine rule but an exception and should be exercised with extreme caution. The discretion to permit cross-examination depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The court clarified that cross-examination of a witness, including a medical practitioner, is permissible when it is necessary to ascertain the truth and when the circumstances justify it.

However, the court also highlighted that cross-examination should not be allowed in a routine manner and must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the nature of the case and the relevance of the cross-examination to the issues involved (!) (!) .

In this particular case, the court found that the order granting permission to cross-examine the doctor was in accordance with the applicable provisions and did not constitute illegality or infirmity. Therefore, cross-examination was not exempted but was permitted based on the case's specific facts and circumstances (!) .

Summary: Cross-examination of the doctor was allowed in this case, but it was not exempted as a matter of routine. It was permitted because the court deemed it necessary to bring out the truth, exercising caution and considering the case-specific circumstances.