Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Third Defendant Examined as DW1: The third defendant, Tmt. Mani (wife of the first defendant), was examined as DW1 after the first defendant's witnesses. Her examination was permissible as she was not an adverse party and had relevant nexus to the case. The court noted that her deposition did not fill the lacunae in the first defendant's case, and her examination was conducted without prior permission, which is generally required ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 7368"].
First Defendant Cannot Be Examined as Witness: The first defendant's attempt to examine himself as DW2 was challenged. Court orders specify that a party wishing to testify must do so before other witnesses, unless permitted later for valid reasons. The rule emphasizes that parties must file witness lists timely, and their examination should follow the prescribed order (Order XVI Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 3-A). The court held that the first defendant's attempt to testify after other witnesses without prior permission was impermissible ["
Shally vs Ram Mohan Gautam - Delhi
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 574"].Order of Witness Examination: The law mandates that witnesses be examined-in-chief first, then cross-examined, and re-examined if needed. Parties have the right to cross-examine co-defendants if their interests are adverse, but not if interests are aligned. The sequence and procedure are strictly governed to ensure fairness ["2022 0 Supreme(AP) 717"], ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 808"].
Legal Procedure for Witnesses and Evidence: Both parties must file lists of witnesses within 15 days of issue settlement. Failure to do so can lead to improper examination procedures. The court's discretion is limited if procedures are not followed, and any deviation, like examining a party as a witness without prior permission, is invalid ["
Shally vs Ram Mohan Gautam - Delhi
"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Del) 792"].Implication of Health and Other Factors: In some cases, witnesses or parties are permitted to testify later due to health issues or other justifications, provided the court's procedures are followed. The court can allow late examination if justified, but not without prior permission ["2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1386"].
The sources collectively emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding the examination of witnesses, especially parties wishing to testify. The third defendant (DW1) was examined with proper context, as her nexus to the case justified her deposition without prior permission, given her non-adverse status and relevance. Conversely, the first defendant's attempt to testify as DW2 after other witnesses without prior approval contravened established rules, rendering such examination invalid.
The procedural framework, including timely filing of witness lists and proper sequencing, is critical to ensure fairness and legality in trial proceedings. Any deviation, such as examining a party as a witness without court permission, is generally impermissible and can be challenged successfully.
References:
Shally vs Ram Mohan Gautam - Delhi
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 574"]
In civil and criminal trials, the sequence and finality of witness examinations play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and preventing . A common query arises: Third Defendant Examined as DW 1 Later First Defendant Cannot be Examined as Witnesses. This question touches on whether a defendant who has already testified as can later be recalled or examined under a different capacity, such as another defendant witness. Generally, once a defendant has completed examination as DW1 and their evidence is closed, is restricted under Indian procedural laws. This blog delves into the legal principles, case law, and exceptions governing such scenarios.
The issue stems from procedural rules that limit repeated examinations to avoid , , or unfair delays. Under the (Sections 137 and 138), witness testimony follows a strict order: , , and . Once closed, reopening is not routine. Similarly, in civil cases, , allows parties to testify but ties it to specific stages. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1468
In practice, if the third defendant has examined themselves as DW1, the first defendant—potentially the same party or linked—cannot typically be examined later without court permission. This upholds trial efficiency and justice. 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 732
A defendant who has already examined himself as DW1 generally cannot be examined again as a witness, particularly after evidence closure. Courts emphasize that is limited to prevent abuse. Key points include:
outline the witness examination sequence. Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1812
Order 18 Rule 3-A CPC permits a party to be examined as a witness at an appropriate stage for just outcomes. However, post-DW1 closure, this opportunity lapses unless the court deems it necessary. 1978 0 Supreme(Ori) 17
Under (applicable analogously in civil matters for truth discovery), courts may summon or re-examine witnesses. Yet, this power is exercised judiciously, not to fill lacunae or enable . 1978 0 Supreme(Ori) 17
This ruling clarifies: The power to summon or re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised only to uncover the truth, not to fill lacunae or for collateral purposes. Re-examining a party post-closure, especially as an afterthought, is impermissible. 1978 0 Supreme(Ori) 17
The holds that discharged witnesses cannot be re-examined without extraordinary reasons. Efforts to defeat justice via such tactics fail. 2006 3 Supreme 204
Related cases highlight nuances for multiple defendants. In one instance, a allowed re-opening evidence to examine the 6th defendant (co-defendant) as a court witness, upheld on appeal due to their pivotal role and shown good cause under CPC . No prejudice was demonstrated. 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2496 A co-defendant can be compelled to testify if good cause is shown, and the Court has discretion over such requests.
However, rights are confined to parties with adverse interests. In a , the fourth defendant lacked standing to cross-examine the third defendant (spouse) absent conflicting interests, per . 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1812
Other judgments note defendants testifying as DW1 alongside others (e.g., first defendant as DW1, second as DW3), but without post-closure. 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3327 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 729 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 420 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3180
If the third defendant testified as DW1 and evidence closed, the first defendant (if the same entity or similarly situated) cannot be examined later. This aligns with principles barring to manipulate proceedings. Courts view such moves skeptically, especially in property disputes involving powers of attorney or sales, where witness roles are scrutinized. 1978 0 Supreme(Ori) 17 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2496
may occur in limited cases:
Generally, a defendant examined as DW1 cannot be re-examined later as another witness after evidence closure, upholding fair trial principles under Indian law. Exceptions require strong justification and court discretion. This prevents abuse while allowing truth-seeking.
Key Takeaways:- Evidence closure finalizes DW1 testimony. 2016 0 Supreme(AP) 732- is discretionary, not routine. 1978 0 Supreme(Ori) 17- Co-defendant summons need good cause. 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2496
This post provides general information based on legal precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The first is as to whether there was any justification for the party in not deposing as a witness, before other non-party witnesses were examined; and the second is as to whether the opportunity given to such a witness would be utilized to fill the lacunae, in the evidence of other witnesses examined ... Therefore, when D.W.1 was examined earlier, though the d....
It is also stated that in view of the Rule 3-A, the defendant No.1 (private respondent No.3 herein) cannot be permitted to appear as a witness before the Trial Court at later stage. ... That lays down a Rule of law with regard to the order of witnesses to be examined in the Court. It applied to both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. ... The 27th Report of the Law ....
7.On 19.10.2008, the first defendant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the 8th defendant. The said power of attorney is said to have been cancelled on a later date. ... (i)The parties to the suit at the first instance entitled to examine witnesses on their behalf except those who are arrayed as parties to the proceedings. ... Therefore, the plaintiff cannot#HL_END....
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re- examined. ... No doubt when there is no clash of interest between the third and fourth defendants and nothing has been said as against the fourth defendant by the third defendant, there #HL_....
The application of the petitioner, for summoning 12 more witnesses apart from DW-1 could not, therefore, be examined under Order XVI Rule 1(3). It had necessarily to be treated as the first application by the petitioner setting out the list of witnesses whose evidence the petitioner desired to lead. ... The learned ADJ has, inadvertently, allowed the recording of the evidence of the peti....
The application of the petitioner, for summoning 12 more witnesses apart from DW-1 could not, therefore, be examined under Order XVI Rule 1(3). It had necessarily to be treated as the first application by the petitioner setting out the list of witnesses whose evidence the petitioner desired to lead. ... The learned ADJ has, inadvertently, allowed the recording of the evidence of the peti....
Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: Order of examinations - Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. ... to first cross-examine DW-1. ... If at all, D-13 intends to cross-examine D-1/DW-1, D-13 should ....
While so, the third defendant sought to examine himself as DW2 after examination of DW1, an independent witnesses. ... On a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that one Tmt.Mani, the wife of the first defendant was examined as DW1. ... Mani is none other than the wife of first defendant Kuppusamy @ Baskaran and it cannot be said....
It is often very difficult to estimate correctly the relative credibility of witnesses Foot notes: 1 (1918) 20 N. L. R.282. 2 (1876) 1 P. D, 283 3 (1898) 1 Ch. 704. ... surveyor, to be appointed, in the first instance, by the first defendant, or, if he failed to appoint a surveyor within three months, by the plaintiff. ... When, as often happens, much turns on the....
Rule 1 of Order 18 lays down general rule of procedure that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the ... For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the trial court in the impugned order that the husband cannot give evidence....
The first defendant was examined as DW-1 and the second defendant was examined as DW-3. During trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses were examined as PW-2 and PW-3. Four other witnesses were examined as DW-2, DW-4 and DW-6.
The first defendant was examined as DW-1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3. On the side of the plaintiffs, a rough sketch of the suit property was marked as Ex.A-1. During trial, the second plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and another witness was examined as PW-2. On the side of the defendants, Exs. B-1 to B-9 were marked.
8. The 2nd plaintiff mounted the witness box and got examined as PW- 1 and marked 30 documents. The first defendant was examined as DW-1 and the third defendant examined as DW-2.
The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW.2 and DW.3.
The Court summons which were sent to PW.2 & PW.3 were marked as Exs. C1 & C2 respectively. On the side of the first defendant, first defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also examined two more witnesses as DW.2 & DW.3.
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
