Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Tapan Kalita, S/o. Late Tankeswar Kalita – Appellant
Versus
L.B. Medi Services Pvt Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances of the challenge to evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. requirements for cross-examination for evidence acceptance. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final court directions for the trial. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)
Heard Mr. N. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Hazarika, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Title Suit No.345/2015 whereby an application filed by the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit seeking expunging of the evidence of the plaintiff witness No.1 was rejected.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the respondent herein as the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration as well as for recovery of compensation. The respondent admittedly is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. At the time of adducing evidence, the respondent submitted the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of 7 witnesses. Relevant herein is to take note of that the plaintiff witness No.1 was an authorized representative of the plaintiff and he had su
Examination-in-chief cannot be considered as evidence without full cross-examination, underscoring the necessity of procedural fairness in court proceedings.
Under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, which confers a valuable right of cross-examination of a witness and documents tendered in evidence by opposite party and the enlarged scope under Section 146 o....
Before leading additional evidence, the party must satisfy the court that the proposed evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been led earlier despite due diligence.
The fundamental principle of law of evidence that a witness proposed to be examined should not be present in the Court during the cross-examination of another witness, and the trial court's obligatio....
The court emphasized the need to give the defendant an opportunity to lead evidence despite her absence on one occasion and held that eschewing the evidence already concluded while allowing further e....
Re-examination of witnesses must be conducted orally in court, not via Affidavit, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
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
