RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Narendra Kumar Taya - Appellant
Versus
Kaushalya - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11110/2021
Decided On : 31-08-2021
Witness - Rent Control - Section 21(3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 - The court emphasized the necessity of recording witness statements at home for bedridden individuals, balancing justice with procedural requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to record the statement of a bedridden witness, NAW/5, on commission due to his medical condition, which was denied by the Rent Tribunal, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the witness was indeed bedridden due to paralysis, and the previous medical documents were sufficient to justify the request for recording his statement at home.
Issues: Whether the Rent Tribunal erred in denying the request to record the statement of a bedridden witness on commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the medical condition of the witness warranted the recording of his statement at home, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice while considering health constraints.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the order of the Rent Tribunal is quashed, directing the recording of the witness's statement at home.
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur whereby, the learned court declined the prayer made by the petitioner for recording the statement of witness NAW/5 on Commission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application under Section 21(3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 read with Order 26 and Section 151 CPC with the pryaer that statement of petitioner's witness NAW/4 and NAW/5 were to be recorded on 27.07.2021. However, since witness NAW/5 Purushottam Kishnani suffered paralysis, he could not come to Court for recording his statement. Therefore, looking to the medical condition of witness NAW/5, it was prayed that his statement may be ordered to be recorded on commission at his home. However, the learned Tribunal in a mechanical manner rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for recording the statement of NAW/5 on Commission. It is argued that the petitioner had produced all the relevant documents alongwith the application evidencing the medical condition which clearly show the inability of NAW/5 to appear in the Court. It is submitted that the witness NAW/5 is a material witness and his examination is very much essential for just decision of the case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for recording the statement of witness NAW/5 on Commission may be quashed and set aside and the statement of petitioner's witness NAW/5 may be ordered to be recorded on Commission at home and respondent be directed to cross-examine the said witness NAW/5 on Commission at home.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 and submits that the petitioner's witness NAW/5 is avoiding his examination in Court and the application has been filed by the petitioner only to delay the proceedings. It is argued that the matter is pending for evidence of petitioner's witnesses for long time. The medical documents are old and it cannot be said that the said witness is not in a position to appear in Court for examination. It is argued that the petitioner has not produced any latest medical document either before the trial court nor before this Court. Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Petland Turkey R.D. Works v. Workers' Union (AIR (1960) S.C 1006), judgment of the Calcutta high court in the case of Octovious Steel & amp; CO. Ltd, v. The Endogram Tea Co. Ltd. ( AIR (1980) (Cal.) 78), the judgment of the Jammu Kashmir high court in the case of Sri Ram v. Ashwani Kumar and Others ( AIR 1978 J&K 78), the judgment of the Delhi High court in the case of Kishan Lal Gupta v. M/s. Dujodwala Industries and others ( AIR 1977 (Delhi) 49), the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High court in the Case of Jaya Shankar Mills (Barsi) Ltd. v. Hazi Zakaria Hazi Ebrahim ( AIR 1962 ( A.P.) (435), the judgment of the Calcutta high court in the case of Pradip Kumar Goenka v. Manju Bhartia ( AIR 2004 (cal.) 89), the judgment of the Rajasthan high court in the case of Nand Kishore v. Gauri Lal (AIR 1951 (Raj.) 48).
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and gone through the material on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner's witness NAW/5 Purushottam Kishnani had suffered paralysis and is bedridden which is evident from the medical documents annexed by the petitioner alongwith application. Learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has produced the medical documents which are eight months old and further looking to the Covid-19 situation, it will not be proper to send someone to record the statement of said witness. In the opinion of this Court, the medical document suggest that the witness NAW/5 has infact suffered a paralytic attack and he is bedridden. Since people suffer
Pradip Kumar Goenka vs. Manju Bhartia, ( AIR 2004 (cal.) 89)
The court established that a witness's medical condition can necessitate recording their statement at home to ensure justice is served.
The court has the discretion to direct the recording of a witness's statement at home through a Commissioner, considering the witness's medical condition and the interest of justice.
The court established that timely submission of evidence is crucial, but courts may exercise discretion to allow late submissions if justified by the circumstances, ensuring fairness in legal proceed....
The court upheld the trial Court's discretion to appoint an advocate commissioner for recording evidence when a witness is unable to attend due to medical conditions, emphasizing justice over procedu....
The admissibility and relevance of electronic records as documentary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the importance of allowing the comparison of voice samples for substantive evidence.
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in recording witness statements and ensuring the accused's right to explain incriminating evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.