The duty of the Counsel to elicit the truth and detect falsehood in the evidence-in-chief, and the court's power to limit the time frame for cross-examination.

ORDER :

1. Pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 24.03.2020, copy of the Petition has been served upon the Caveator-Respondent No.3 who had filed Caveat Petition No.02 of 2020.

2. All Respondents are represented by their respective learned Counsel today. They waive formal Notice.

3. I.A. No.01 of 2020, a stay application, has also been filed by the Petitioners along with the Writ Petition seeking stay of the impugned Order, dated 12.02.2020.

4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.3.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents No.1 and 2 had no submissions to make.

6. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the Order dated 12.02.2020, passed by the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No.01 of 2017 (Karmapa Charitable Trust and Others vs. State of Sikkim and Others) inter alia on grounds that it was ordered as follows;

“Given the facts and circumstances, it would suffice if the Plaintiffs are given three(03) days time for the cross-examination of the Defendant No.3.”

7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.K. Rai, while assailing the Order, canvassed the contention that the evidence of Respondent No.3 (Defendant No.3 in Title Suit No.01 of 2017 supra) is being recorded before the learned Commissioner, a retired District Judge. The witness is only conversant in the Tibetan vernacular and the cross-examination is being conducted with the aid of two Interpreters viz. Mr. Jigmee Wangchuk Bhutia, Post Graduate Teacher, Enchey Senior Secondary School, Gangtok and Mr. Ugen Tsewang, Ex-Translator, Namgyal Institute of Tibetology, Gangtok. Consequently, the recording of the evidence of Respondent No.3 in the said circumstances becomes protracted as it has to be translated from the Tibetan vernacular to English and then only recorded thereby requiring substantial amount of time. The learned Commissioner, during cross-examination of the Respondent No.3, has never observed that the Petitioners had asked any irrelevant questions. However, the impugned Order came to be passed and the curtailment of time for cross-examination of Respondent No.3 to three days would lead to miscarriage of justice and is contrary to the basic tenets of fair trial, hence the instant application praying that the impugned Order be set aside and ten days’ time be granted to the Petitioners to cross-examine the Respondent No.3.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.3, for his part, advanced the argument that the witness was being subjected to harassment by prolonged cross-examination and irrelevant questions being put to him. The cross-examination is sought to be continued only for the purpose of badgering the witness by asking pointless and arbitrary questions when, in fact, the cross-examination has covered the main aspects of the case and the Petitioners do not require more than a day for recording further evidence. Such dilatory tactics has humiliated and traumatized the Respondent No.3 as scant consideration is paid to the fact that he is a senior citizen and in frail health. In fact, the learned trial Court has correctly considered that the witness has already been examined for four days and therefore permitted three days further time for his cross-examination. That, the learned trial Court is clothed with powers to control the time limit for the cross-examination for which reliance was placed on the ratiocinations of R.K. Chandolia vs. CBI & Ors., 2012 SCC Online Del 2047, D.P. Sinha vs. Brig. E.T. Sen (Retired), 1969 SCC Online Del 201, Dineshbhai Zaverbhai Vora vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 Cri.LJ 1588 and Yeshpal Jashbhai Parikh vs. Rasiklal Umedchand Parikh, AIR 1955 Bombay 318. That, in consideration of the above submissions, the petition deserves a dismissal.

9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned Counsel at length. I have also perused the orders of the learned Commissioner, cross-examination of the Respondent No.3 and the impugned Order, for the instant purpose, includi