SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Bhimsen Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Samuel Devashish James – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satrughna Dash
For the Respondent: A.R. Dash

Table of Content
1. challenge to trial court's orders (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against recalling witnesses (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's lack of legal basis for ruling (Para 6 , 9 , 10)
4. court's power to recall witnesses (Para 7 , 8 , 11)
5. final decision to allow c.m.p and set aside orders (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in C.S. No.793/2017 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 4th Additional Court, Cuttack have filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the orders dtd. 06.12.2023 and 24.1.2024 passed in the said case.

3. Heard Mr. S. Dash (A), learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners. Despite valid service of notice, there was no appearance from the side of the defendants. As such, this Court requested Mr. A.R.Dash, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae to which he consented and made submissions.

5. Mr. Dash, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that after amendment of the C.P.C. in 2002 by way of deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17-A, the scope of recalling a witness for cross-examination has become very limited. Referring to the position of law Mr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top