The party producing a witness possesses an inherent right to re-examine them to provide necessary elucidation or explanations concerning matters raised during cross-examination, and courts should liberally grant requests for such re-examination, subject to authorizing the adverse party to further cross-examine if new material is introduced.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Drupad Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At the outset, Mr. Drupad Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he was confused and was not aware that the impugned order is required to be made a part of the petition. He was under the impression that the impugned order is just required to be filed with the petition and not made an Annexure to the petition.

3. This Court taking into account that it is a mistake committed by the counsel and it being well settled principle of law that a party should not suffer on account of the fault of the counsel, this Court proceeds with the disposal of the instant proceedings without taking cognizance of such a mistake.

4. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby an application filed under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for re-examination of the DW1 was rejected.

5. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents herein had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code alleging violation of an order dated 28.02.2018 by the petitioner passed in Misc.(J) Case No.100/2018 arising out of Title Suit No.50/2017. In the said proceedings, the respondents had adduced evidence. The petitioner herein who was the opposite party in the said proceedings had also adduced evidence. The cross-examination of the petitioner was done at the residence of the petitioner after the learned Trial Court had issued a Commission. The said cross- examination was carried out on 28.07.2023. At that point of time, the petitioner herein did not have an opportunity to seek re- examination as the Commissioner did not have the power to permit re-examination. It is under such circumstances, on 02.08.2023, the application was filed under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking re-examination of the petitioner. Upon filing of the said application, the respondents herein had filed written objection.

6. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 rejected the said application on the ground that the application so filed by the petitioner seeking re-examination did not specify what doubts and discrepancies were required to be clarified through re-examination, and as such, rejected the same. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been initiated.

7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given an anxious consideration to the materials on record.

8. The right to re-examine the witness by the party calling the witness is inherent. It is settled position of law that if there is a requirement to seek certain clarifications as regards any doubts and discrepancies, the learned Court before whom the cross- examination is being conducted is required to give an opportunity to the party calling the witness to re-examine his or her witness. It is also well settled that in the process of re- examination, if any additional materials are stated with the leave of the Court, the party who had earlier cross-examined would have a right to re-cross-examine the said witness. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the