IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

rd

ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5735 of 2025 SMT. SWATI DWIVEDI D/O SHRI P.D. DWIVEDI Versus YOGESH MISHRA Appearance:

Shri Ajay Sen - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 20.08.2025 and 23.09.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in case No.164/2021, whereby the petitioner's right to cross- examine the respondent's/applicant’s witness Namesh Kumar, has been closed and on submission of application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the application has also been rejected.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for mercy of the Court to allow the petition subject to cost to cross-examine the witness of the respondent/applicant as the right of cross-examination has been closed vide order dated 20.08.2025. It is submitted that for the mistake of the counsel, the litigant should not be punished, as it is a trite law. It is submitted that the petitioner may be given one chance to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff, the petitioner is ready to compensate the respondent/applicant by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH way of some cost.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Considering the submission of the petitioner, as the right to cross-

examine of the witness has been closed by the impugned order. This Court is of the considered opinion that one chance in the interest of justice be given to the petitioner for cross-examination the witness of the plaintiff, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the opposite side. This Court is also of the opinion that the rules are hand maid of justice and not tyrant. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) thr. LRs v.

P.Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 has held as under :-

“9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).”

5. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one chance to the petitioner can be granted subject to payment of costs. If such chance is granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH respondent/applicant, as such cross-examination is necessary for fair and unbiased adjudication of the matter. Thus, the court below is directed to grant one chance to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness Naresh Kumar of the plaintiff on date fixed by the court below subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-to be paid to the opposite side. On such date fixed by the Court, in case the petitioner does not cross-examine the witness of the applicant, the orders passed by the court below shall be maintained.

6. With the aforesaid petition stands disposed of.

(DEEPAK KHOT)

JUDGE skt Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH