Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Albina Alen Fernandes, filed a civil suit against the respondents, Kelwyn John Nicholas Pereira and others, seeking declaration and injunction. During the hearing of an application for interim injunction, the trial court permitted cross-examination of the defendant at the petitioner's request. However, when certain documents were attempted to be shown to the defendant during cross-examination, the defendant's counsel objected, and the trial court upheld the objection, declining to permit further cross-examination on those documents. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court observed that the petition arose purely out of an interlocutory order and that it would not be appropriate to interfere. The court noted that under Order 19 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court has discretion to allow cross-examination at the interim stage, and such permission can be conditional or limited to relevant points to save judicial time. The trial court had found that the cross-examination on the documents was not relevant for the purpose of considering the interim injunction application, which was a possible finding of fact based on the pleadings before it. The High Court held that the decision to permit or limit cross-examination is discretionary and must be exercised judicially and judiciously. Since the trial court's finding was not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Orders - Cross-Examination at Interim Stage - Order 19 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court has discretion to permit cross-examination of a deponent on affidavit at the interim stage, and such permission can be conditional or limited to relevant points to save judicial time. The trial court's finding that cross-examination on certain documents was not relevant for the interim injunction application is a possible finding of fact and not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-4) B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court declined to interfere with an interlocutory order curtailing cross-examination, holding that it would not be appropriate to interfere in a writ petition arising purely out of an interlocutory order. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order curtailing cross-examination of a defendant at the interim injunction stage was proper and whether the High Court should interfere with such an interlocutory order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order was a possible finding of fact and that it would not be appropriate to interfere with an interlocutory order in a writ petition.
Law Points
- Cross-examination at interlocutory stage is discretionary
- can be limited to relevant points
- Order 19 Rule 1 CPC
- judicial discretion
- saving judicial time
