Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Sushila Devi, Wife Of Shri Shankar Lal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Santara Devi, Wife Of Shri Ram Chandra Meena – Respondent
Order :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil case No.05/2006, whereby the said Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff has also challenged the order dated 08.01.2018, whereby the review application filed by the plaintiff under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”) in which counsel for the plaintiff had partly cross-examined the defendant Santra Devi. Due to work in Rajasthan High Court, her advocate had gone to the High Court after the lunch and plaintiff sought time to cross-examine Santra Devi. In the absence of the advocate, plaintiff’s husband submitted some document. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that husband of the plaintiff no legal knowledge, so he could not cross-examine the defendant Santra Devi as per law.
3. Learned counsel
Fairness in legal proceedings mandates allowing cross-examination opportunities, especially when a party lacks legal representation, ensuring justice is served.
The court affirmed the essential right to cross-examine witnesses fully, emphasizing no counsel should be compelled to conclude cross-examination in one sitting without justified reasons.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted power of the court to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC and the need for bona fide applications, cautioning against....
A party should not remained unheard – Adjudication should be on merits rather than on mere technicalities.
The court balanced equities and granted a final opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine PW3, subject to conditions, despite not approving their conduct.
The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination and ensuring expeditious disposal of the trial.
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
