Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Smt. Sutapa Dhar W/o Sri Rahul Dhar – Appellant
Versus
Debajyoti Das Choudhury S/o Late Durgesh Chandra Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.501/2016 whereby the learned Trial Court had imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- while granting an adjournment to the defendant at the stage of cross examination of the Defendant No 2.
3. This Court has duly taken note of that the defendant was given the opportunity to adduce her evidence way back on 23.11.2017. Thereupon, for the next 6 (six) years, the defendant had not been able to complete her evidence. It is further seen that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 had granted an adjournment by imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- with a further direction to produce the Defendant witness No.2 to face cross-examination on the next date. It is under such circumstances, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is invoked.
4. This Court at the outset expresses its
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
The court emphasized that additional evidence may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances, not as a routine, and evaluated the impact of delay on justice delivery.
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
High Court inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice; trial court justified closing defence evidence after accused's repeated fa....
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
Non-payment of costs for cross-examination leads to forfeiture of participation rights but does not result in automatic dismissal of the suit.
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
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
