Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Soma Devi – Appellant
Versus
Dharam Pal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial court dismissed joint witness cross-examination request. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners contended separate cross-exam reveals defense strategy. (Para 4) |
| 3. denying joint cross-exam prejudices defense by revelation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. impugned order quashed; joint cross-examination directed. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 26.05.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Amb, District Una, H.P., which reads as under:-
“One witness namely Sanjeev Singh present but was not cross-examined by Id. counsel for respondent who stated that he wants to cross-examine all the witnesses together as his defence may be disclosed. He has also filed an application in that regard but request made therein is not found to have merits because it may not be practically possible at a time to cross-examine all the witnesses. Hence, his application is dismissed. Adjournment declined. Witness Sanjeev Singh present present has been examined and discharged without cross-examination. File be now listed for remaining Aws on 28.7.2022.”
2. This order was passed by the learned Court below in the proceedings whi
In Order XXXIX Rule 2A proceedings, trial courts must permit cross-examination of related witnesses together if one absent, to prevent revealing defence questions and ensure justice; refusal is perve....
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 that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not permit calling the other party to the suit only for the purpose of cross-examination and condemns t....
The accused persons should not be forced to cross-examine the witness if the application filed under section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is allowed, and a criminal court cannot alter or rev....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in denying further cross-examination, stating no compelling reasons were shown by the petitioner for such a request.
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
