Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Krishna Singh, son of late Mukhlal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Kumar, son of late Bhrigu Nath Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division-I, Bokaro in Title Suit No. 48 of 2008 whereby the petition filed by plaintiff/opposite party under Order XVI Rule 1(2) and 1(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff has filed the petition for examining the witness which has been allowed by the learned court in absence of any cogent reason in view of that said order is illegal which may kindly be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the learned court has elaborately dealt with the situation and has come to the conclusion that Jai Narayan Singh is required to be examined in light of interest of justice and for just and proper decision of the case and that has been done at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. She submits that right of the defendant has not been taken away by the said order.
5. Order XVI Rule 3 of C.P.C. clearly stipulates that reasons be recorded.
Procedural rules must facilitate justice; courts can allow witness examination to ensure fair proceedings, preserving rights of all parties involved.
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 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 denial of cross-examination constitutes serious procedural injustice, necessitating exercise of inherent powers for fairness and justice.
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
