Back
2023 Supreme(Tri) 64
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Ashutosh Shil Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Subhashi Shil, Wife of Late Kamini Shil @ Kamini Kumar Shil Sharma & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2023
P.K Pal, Advocate, Kawsik Nath, Advocate
The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and the right to cross-examine witnesses as essential for ensuring justice in civil proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure - Quashing of trial court's order - Petitioner challenged the order rejecting adjournment for cross-examination due to absence of witness - Court found that trial court failed to appreciate necessity for evidence and adjournment was justified. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 7)
(B) Adjournment in civil proceedings - The court ruled that parties should have appropriate opportunities to present their cases, emphasizing the importance of cross-examination for justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order of the Civil Judge that closed evidence without allowing time for the necessary cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses due to illness, leading to a grievance about fairness in proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court permitted the petition with a reminder for cooperation in future proceedings and imposed a cost on the petitioner. The case was remanded for further evidence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the trial court erred in denying the adjournment request for cross-examination of a crucial witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of allowing parties to cross-examine witnesses and stressed that procedural fairness is paramount in ensuring justice in civil proceedings.
Result: Petition allowed; order of the trial court set aside, with directions for further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding cross-examination and time petition (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's decision and order (Para 7) |
| 4. disposition of the petition (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.09.2022 in T.S 30 of 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura, Belonia.
3. Brief facts are as under :
The plaintiff No.1 filed the examination in chief of PW1 and P.W.2. The cross-examination of the plaintiff witness side had already been completed and thereafter the cross-examination of DWs by the plaintiff side remain pending. The date on 27.09.2022 was fixed for cross-examination of DWs by the plaintiff, as a last chance, the defendant i.e. the petitioner defendant herein as DW could not unable to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura, Belonia accompanying his witnesses who were out of station on account of sudden illness of old aged aliments. Having informed over mobile phone the counselor of the petitioner defendant filed a time petition praying adjournment of the proceeding of that date by allowing further time. The learned trial Judge did not entertain the time petition and hereby rejected and closed the evidence and fixed next date for proceeding on 03.12.2022 for argument by passing an order dated 27.09.2022. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.09.2022 the petitioner-defendant herein preferred this petition.
4. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief :
'(i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Plaintiff-respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari will not be issued for rendering justice by setting aside the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), South Tripura, Belonia in T.S 30 of 2018 (Annexure-6).
(ii) Upon hearing the parties, rule may be made absolute in terms of the prayer at (i) above;
(iii) In the interim Your Lordship may be pleased enough to stay further proceeding of the case till disposal of the present petition.'
5. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned court below failed to appreciate the necessity of cross-examination of DW (actual owner of the suit land) by the plaintiff-respondents and also the learned court below made a gross mistake in not allowing the time petition on exceptional reason. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura, Belonia in T.S 30 of 2018.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Kawsik, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the petition may be allowed subject to payment of cost.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, South Tripura, Belonia in T.S 30 of 2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court below and the petitioner is given opportunity to lead his evidence. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperative with the court below without dragging the matter for seeking further adjournments under any pretext. It is represented by both sides they would be ready on 04.02.2023 to lead evidence. Accordingly, dated is fixed on 04.02.2023 for leading evidence before the court below. However, the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of High Court Employees Association. A copy of this order be furnished to the President of High Court Employees Association. When the matter is heard on 04.02.2023, the petitioner shall produce the payment of cost receipt before the court below.
8. Petition is disposed of with the aforesai
