Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
AKHILESH SINGH S/o SANAND SINGH – Appellant
Versus
KRISHAN BAHADUR SINGH – Respondent
ORDER : – This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed at the instance of defendant No. 6 and 7 against the impugned order dated 30-11-2021 (Annexure P/9) passed by IVth District Judge, Satna.
2. A Civil Suit No. 1-A/2014 is pending before the trial Court seeking decree of specific performance of contract dated 17-1-2017 and declaring the sale deed dated 15-3-2013 and 17-4-20013 executed in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 to be null and void to the extent of share of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The petitioners in the present petition are defendants No. 6 and 7 in the civil suit. In the trial Court, the evidence of defendant No. 1 was recorded. However, defendant No. 6 was not given opportunity to cross-examine defendant No. 1 and the statement of defendant No. 1 was against the defendant No. 6 and, therefore, his prayer for cross-examination was accepted by this Court, vide order dated 8-1-2020 passed in W. P. No. 10710/2017.
3. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, on 5-3-2020, the learned trial Court appointed the Court Commissioner to record the statement of D.W.1 as the said witness was unable to stand on his leg
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 emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for cross-examination and ensuring expeditious disposal of the trial.
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 court upheld the trial Court's discretion to appoint an advocate commissioner for recording evidence when a witness is unable to attend due to medical conditions, emphasizing justice over procedu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC cannot be used to fill up the omission in the evidence already let by a witness, and there is no ....
The right to cross-examine is an indelible right of a party before the Civil Court, and should not be denied unless there has been absolute laxity on the part of the petitioner/defendant.
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
