Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Kesari Chand Goel S/o Late Ramawatar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S.Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. S.Deka, learned Sr. Counsel for the opposite party.
2. This is a revision petition filed against the impugned Order dated 30.04.2019 passed in Title Suit No.16/2017 by the Civil Judge, Hailakandi, in which the cross examination of PW-1 was expunged and against the order dated 31.08.2019 in Misc. Cases No.65/2019 wherein the prayer for allowing the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine the Pw-1 witness was rejected.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit being T.S. No.16/2017 before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Hailakandi, for a decree declaring that the petitioner/defendant is not entitled to claim and/or demand any interest and/or right, title, interest and authority over the Schedule A and/or other property, owned by Sri Ramawatar Agarwal (since deceased) as mentioned in the Title Suit No. 16/2017. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. The case was proceeded with and on 30.04.2019 the case was fixed for cross examination of the Pw-1. However, on that day, the engaged counsel appearing on behalf o
Default in prosecuting legal matters justifies closure of cross-examination rights; adjournments must be justified to ensure speedy court proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of completing cross-examination within the time frame set by the High Court and allowed two additional days for cross-examination as a special case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must avail the opportunities given by the court, and a mere change of counsel does not suffice as a reason for not cross-examinin....
The aim of every Court has to discover the truth. Section 311 of the Code is one of many such provisions of the Code which strengthen the arms of a Court in its effort to ferret out the truth by proc....
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.
The court highlighted the need for a delicate balance between expeditious disposal and fair opportunity in matrimonial disputes, considering the reasons for delay and the impact of external factors.
The main legal point established is the importance of expediting the trial and the power of the trial Court to refuse adjournments or impose heavy costs to ensure a complete trial.
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
