The right to lead evidence is fundamental to a fair trial and should not be curtailed without cogent reasons.

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2023 passed by III Civil Judge, District Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No.02-B of 2020 (RCS); whereby, the learned Trial Court taking into consideration the repeated adjournments sought by the petitioner/defendant had closed right to lead the evidence in support of her defence, finding no cogent reason for another adjournment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of 1,69,000/-, which was allegedly withdrawn by the petitioner/defendant from Debit Card of respondent by playing fraud on 07.04.2019. The petitioner/defendant had filed written statement before the learned trial Court and had denied the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, the case was fixed for respondent/plaintiff’s evidence and the petitioner/defendant had moved an application to lead the evidence but by the impugned order dated 29.03.2023, the learned Trial Court had closed the defendant’s evidence and fixed the case for plaintiff’s evidence. Further, prayer made by respondent/plaintiff for calling of the witness, namely, Tej Singh for exhibiting the documents i.e. application, original investigation report, statements of the witness and Bank statement etc., was allowed, thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid, the preset petition has been filed before ther Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has argued before this Court that due to the impugned order herein, a valuable right of the petitioner to test the veracity and correctness of material documents, which is a fundamental right of fair trial had been denied and by such denial, a fundamental right has been curtailed and as it is settled principle that curtailing the rights of the party to lead evidence seriously prejudices their privileges and without any cogent and plausible explanation, the said privileges should not be curtailed, the impugned order is bad in law.

4. It was further argued that due to the impugned orders herein, a valuable right of the petitioner to lead her evidence on some material documents would be left which would cause great prejudice to her, as it is settled principle that curtailing the rights of the party to lead evidence seriously prejudices their privileges and without any cogent and plausible explanation, the said privileges should not be curtailed.

5. It was further argued that as far as the right of cross-examination of a witness is concerned, it is the most powerful and effective instrument in the hand of a person for bringing out and testing the truth of the evidence of witness and it is settled law that when allegations/accusations are made against any person facing trial, that party should have ample opportunity to cross-examine the person who had given the evidence against her/him and it is only after such an opportunity is given and the witness is cross-examined, the evidence becomes admissible. It was, thus, prayed that present petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside by permitting the petitioner to lead the evidence in support of her defence before the trial Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent had opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned order/s passed by the Court below.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties before this Court.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 has held as under:-

“50. It is well settled that proce