Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
T. Jeyakumar – Appellant
Versus
K. Anbalagan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petitions regarding interlocutory applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against recalling witnesses for additional cross-examination. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's discretion in allowing further cross-examination. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. order to uphold trial court's decision and expedite suit. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2023 in I.A.Nos.9 and 10 of 2023 in O.S.No.220 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District Judge (PCR), Trichy. By the said order, the trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Applications. The Interlocutory Applications were filed by the respondents with a prayer to recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross examination.
2. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the suit is for recovery of money. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and the witness to the promissory note was examined as P.W.2. Those two witnesses were already cross examined by the plaintiff also. When the matter was at the argument stage, the present applications are filed. The trial Court, after considering the applications as well as the opposition by the petitioner herein,
The trial Court's discretion to allow further cross-examination is valid unless proven perverse, ensuring fairness and expediency in legal proceedings.
The provision under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to fill up lacunae, and repeated applications for recall of the same witness for further cross-examination would not be maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party, after filing a separate written statement and pleading collusion and fraud, is entitled to cross-examine witnesses based on their wri....
Restoration of petition – If there are any laches on part of parties, endeavour can be made to dispose of case on merits even by imposing costs, rather than disposing of case by taking evidence on on....
The cross-examination rights of parties in a trial must be preserved according to procedural rules, ensuring fairness in witness examination, which was violated in this case.
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.
The court emphasized that allowing repeated cross-examination without valid reasons would cause hardship to the witnesses and that petitions filed at a belated stage without merits would not be consi....
An order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory and not subject to revision. Recalling a witness should be balanced with considerations of fairness, undue hardship to witnesses, and delay in the ....
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
