Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Sita Devi – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Ram alias Kishan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22.06.2022, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to recall and re-examine witness Chuni Lal, has been dismissed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Counsel engaged by the party unfortunately was suffering from ill health and on account thereof, on the date concerned, the witness was examined by a junior Counsel and because said junior Counsel was not properly briefed, therefore, he could not put appropriate questions to the witness and further as the witness had turned hostile, therefore, there was a need to conduct his cross examination but this was also not done by the Counsel who had in fact appeared vice to the original Counsel. He thus submitted that as on account of the negligence on the part of the Counsel, the petitioner was being denied justice, it was in these circumstances that the application was filed and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored
A party cannot reopen evidence on grounds of prior counsel's negligence; integrity of trial procedures must be upheld.
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended to clarify doubts and not to fill omissions in evidence or to allow for further elaboration on left-out issues.
Engaging a new counsel cannot be a ground for reopening evidence and filling up lacunae in the case.
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.
Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in diff....
The authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
Order XVIII Rule 3A CPC mandates initial party testimony but permits later examination for recorded reasons even if sought subsequently, exercised judicially in peculiar facts to balance justice and ....
Litigants are bound by the conduct of their advocates, and CPC provisions cannot be used to remedy previous evidential deficiencies.
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
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
