Back
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Kangkan Kishore Borah S/O Umesh Borah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By Commissioner and Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard, Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Boro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner Kangkan Kishore Borah instituted T.S. No. 497/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati praying for a declaration that the letter dated 16.08.2013 issued by the defendant no. 4 therein namely the Secretary Jyoti Chitraban, Film Studio Society to be bad in law, in-operative and not binding upon the plaintiff and further for a declaration that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.29,02,167/-(Twenty Nine Lakhs Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven) with pendentillite and future interest and certain other reliefs as indicated in the prayer of the plaint.
3. In the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup, the matter was placed before the learned Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of adducing oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties. The cross examination of DW.2 namely Ranjan Hazarika was fixed before the learned Advocate Commissioner on 21.01.2023. But on the said date, the plaintiff made a request to the learn
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted power of the court to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC and the need for bona fide applications, cautioning against....
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 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.
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.
Default in prosecuting legal matters justifies closure of cross-examination rights; adjournments must be justified to ensure speedy court proceedings.
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is discretionary and should not be used to exploit evidentiary gaps; it must prioritize justice and not disrupt trial proceedings.
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
