ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 15-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18.05.2017, passed by learned Sub- Judge, Sub-divisional Civil Court, Sonpur (Saran) in Title Suit No. 472 of 2005, seeking directions for setting aside the said order.

3. The facts of the case, as it appears from the record are that the petitioners have filed the Title Suit No. 472 of 2005 against the defendant/respondent, namely, Rina Devi for declaration of title over suit property and also for restraining the defendant/respondent from selling the ancestral property of the petitioners. In the course of hearing, while evidence of DW7, namely Arun Kumar Singh, was being recorded, the said witness made certain statement in his examination-in-chief which was stated to be completely irrelevant to the facts in the suit and at the same time it was scandalous and affected the dignity and chastity of petitioner no.1, a widow lady. The petitioners made an application before the learned Sub-Judge, Sub-divisional Civil Court, Sonpur (Saran) for deleting the scandalous and irrelevant statement, given by the defendant’s witness, in his examination-in-chief. However, the learned Subordinate Court, while disposing of the application of the petitioner, passed an order on 18.05.2017 in the said Title Suit No. 472 of 2005, issuing warning to the petitioners to complete cross-examination of defendant’s witness, namely, Arun Kumar Singh. The said order is under challenge before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Subordinate Judge has not considered the provisions of Section 151 of the Indian Evidence Act which specifically provides that the Court may forbid any question or inquiry which it regards as indecent or scandalous although such question or inquiry may have some bearing on the question before the Court, unless they relate to the fact in issue. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not consider that the dignity of petitioner no.1 was questioned by the witness which was completely irrelevant in the facts of the given case. Similar to the effect is Section 152 of the Indian Evidence Act which casts a duty upon the Court to forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy or which though proper in itself appears to the court needlessly offensive in form. The learned trial court further failed to take into consideration the principle of relevancy of fact as described under Section 5 to Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, learned counsel submits that the order of the learned trial court is in ignorance of law and judicial precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any scandalous and irrelevant question having no relevance to matter in issue ought not to be allowed.

5. Perused the record.

6. Having regard to the facts of the case and submission made on behalf of the petitioners, it transpires that the petitioners filed an application for deleting certain portion of the deposition from examination-in-chief of defendant’s witness no.7, namely, Arun Kumar Singh. These portions, as it appears from the copy of the application dated 18.05.2017 are with regard to paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9. The petitioners have challenged the deletion of these portions on the ground that the deposition in the aforesaid paragraphs is against the pleading and nothing has been submitted in the pleadings of the defendant on the point on which the DW7 has deposed in the aforesaid paragraphs. But in my view, whatever has been stated in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9, the same is with regard to the respondent, namely, Rina Devi @ Rina Singh and her status and the facts related with her action, which has been challenged by the plaintiffs/petitioners. Paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the deposition o