Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Sanjib Saikia, S/o. Late Dandidhar Saikia – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/o. Gauri Kumar Gupta – Respondent
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 Civi
Recall of witness – Section 138 of N.I. Act permits re-examination of witnesses but it cannot be exercised to the extent of taking away effect/withdraw any statement made during examination/cross-exa....
A court may permit re-examination of a witness to ensure fairness in proceedings, though it should also impose appropriate costs for belated applications to prevent abuse of process.
Re-examination of witnesses under Section 138 of the Evidence Act is crucial for clarification of ambiguities, allowing for new matters with court permission, enhancing fairness in trials.
The discretion to recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC allows clarification of ambiguities in testimony, essential for fair adjudication without filling gaps in evidence.
Re-examination of witnesses is a right of the Public Prosecutor to clarify ambiguities from cross-examination without restricting the scope of questions asked, but new facts require court permission.
Permission to examine a witness can be granted before or after examination, with careful consideration to avoid prejudice, as highlighted in various legal precedents.
The court emphasized that powers under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC cannot be used to fill omissions in previously recorded witness evidence, reaffirming its intended use for clarification only.
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
