Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Basanta Behera @ Basanta Kumar Behera – Appellant
Versus
Rabindra Behera – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The right to cross-examine a Commissioner appointed for a partition proceeding is upheld even if no objection has been filed by a party. However, the sequence in which parties exercise this right is crucial to ensure procedural fairness. The party that objects to the report must exercise their cross-examination rights before the party that did not object, to prevent any unfair advantage (!) (!) .
If a party does not file objections to the Commissioner’s report, they are generally entitled to cross-examine the Commissioner, but this right should be exercised prior to the cross-examination by a party that has objected. Allowing a non-objecting party to cross-examine after an objecting party has done so can distort fairness and is therefore inappropriate (!) (!) .
The court emphasized the importance of the sequence of cross-examination, especially in cases where some parties support and others oppose the case. The party supporting the report, which has not filed objections, should cross-examine first, followed by the opposing parties. This sequence aligns with principles of procedural fairness (!) .
In the specific case, the court found that permitting the non-objecting party to cross-examine the Commissioner after the objecting party had done so was unfair and could provide an undue advantage. Consequently, the order allowing the second party to cross-examine was set aside to maintain fairness (!) .
The court directed that further proceedings should be conducted in accordance with law, adhering to the proper sequence of cross-examination rights to ensure procedural fairness and prevent any unfair advantage among parties (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of the sequence of cross-examination rights in proceedings involving Commissioners, especially in cases where objections are raised, to uphold procedural fairness.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's reasoning on cross-examination order. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on cross-examination rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. conclusion on the fairness of the order. (Para 11) |
| 5. final decision and directive. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner is the defendant No.1- judgment debtor of C.S. No. 54/2006-(1) of the Court of learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Balasore. In the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, he seeks to challenge the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the said Court in final decree proceeding arising out of the said suit whereby, the defendant No.2 was permitted to cross-examine the Civil Court Commissioner.
2. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed preliminarily on 30.09.2013 declaring the entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendants. The present petitioner defendant No.1 carried appeal to the District Court in RFA No.157 of 2013, but said appeal was dismissed on 03.03.2017. The plaintiff thereafter initiated final
A party's right to cross-examine a Commissioner in partition proceedings must be observed before opposing parties in order to maintain procedural fairness, particularly subsequent to objections raise....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside a trial court's decision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it finds a palpable error in the re....
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 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.
Co-defendants have the right to cross-examine each other's witnesses if the witness’s testimony is adverse to their interests, emphasizing the fundamental fairness in judicial proceedings.
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 right to cross-examine a witness is confined to a party with adverse interest as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, and this principle applies even in a suit for partition where all p....
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
