Back
BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
Hemendra – Appellant
Versus
Dheeraj (Since Deceased) Now LRs. (A) Jayesh Modi – Respondent
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.1.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed on application filed under Order 18 rule 17 CPC whereby prayer to recall the plaintiff for his further cross-examination on the documents which were shown and exhibited during cross-examination of defendant's witness Himendra (DW-1) and similarly another order dated 21.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed on application under Order 17 rule 1 CPC whereby right to examine defendant's witness Narendra, who is a attesting witness of the Will disputed in the instant Civil Suit has been closed.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present suit RCS No. 49-A/2022 which has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the learned trial Court challenging the Will dated 8.3.2014 which was executed by mother of the plaintiff in defendant's favour. Learned senior counsel further submits that plaintiff did not file any document with regard to showing health condition of the mother before execution of the aforesaid Will neither with the plaint nor after filing of the plaint under Order
Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in diff....
Litigants are bound by the conduct of their advocates, and CPC provisions cannot be used to remedy previous evidential deficiencies.
In testamentary proceedings, the court has discretion to allow examination of attesting witnesses before the party, aligning with provisions for proving the execution of a Will.
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.
Once that Will is brought on record in evidence, the appellants/respondents would still retain their right to question the respondent/petitioner on the validity of the execution of the same, particul....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Order XVI Rule 14, emphasizing that the necessity to summon a party must be convincingly established.
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
