Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Gurdial Singh, proprietor of M/s Bir Horizons, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an interlocutory order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The respondent, M/s Arudatta Triotex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., had filed a suit against the petitioner and the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation. In the suit, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of its witness, Sunildatta Vasant Borwankar (PW1), in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). PW1 was cross-examined by the defendant on 18th June, 2009. On the next date, 18th July, 2009, the plaintiff applied for permission to re-examine PW1 to explain ambiguities that had arisen during cross-examination regarding a letter dated 19th July, 2001 (Exh.66/1). The defendant opposed the application. The trial court, by order dated 11th August, 2009, allowed the application, restricting re-examination to explaining the circumstances under which the letter was issued. The defendant filed a review application, which was dismissed on 30th March, 2010. The defendant then challenged both orders in the High Court. The High Court held that re-examination is permissible under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC to explain ambiguities arising from cross-examination, and the trial court had properly exercised its discretion. The court noted that the re-examination was not to fill gaps but to clarify ambiguities, and the trial court had imposed a condition restricting its scope. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Re-examination of Witness - Order 18 Rule 4 CPC - Ambiguities arising from cross-examination - The trial court allowed re-examination of PW1 to explain circumstances under which a letter dated 19th July, 2001 was issued, after ambiguities arose during cross-examination. The High Court held that re-examination is permissible to explain ambiguities, not to fill gaps, and the trial court's discretion was properly exercised. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Review of Interlocutory Order - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The defendant's review application was dismissed as no error apparent on record was shown. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that review is not a rehearing. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting permission to the plaintiff to re-examine its witness (PW1) to explain ambiguities arising from cross-examination, and whether such re-examination is permissible under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing re-examination of PW1 restricted to explaining the circumstances under which the letter dated 19th July, 2001 was issued, and the dismissal of the review application.
Law Points
- Re-examination is permissible to explain ambiguities arising from cross-examination
- Re-examination cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence
- Trial court has discretion to allow re-examination
- Order 18 Rule 4 CPC allows affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief
- Review application not maintainable against interlocutory order if no error apparent
