Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subham Pande, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur, which rejected his applications for review of a 'no-cross' order and for condonation of delay. The background involves a civil suit where a 'no-cross' order was initially passed against the petitioner on 3/2/2010. The petitioner moved an application on 4/3/2010 to set aside that order, which was allowed on 10/8/2010 subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. However, the petitioner failed to deposit the costs, leading the trial court to pass an order on 23/9/2010 maintaining the 'no-cross' order and directing the suit to proceed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications on 2/11/2010 for review of the 23/9/2010 order (Exh.118) and for condonation of delay (Exh.119), both of which were rejected on 28/3/2011. In the writ petition, the High Court had earlier directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2000/- in court, which was done. The respondent no.1's counsel did not strongly oppose the petition. The High Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited a total of Rs.3000/- (Rs.1000/- earlier and Rs.2000/- as directed). Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order dated 28/3/2011, allowed the applications Exh.118 and 119, set aside the 'no-cross' order dated 3/2/2010, and permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review of 'No-Cross' Order - Condonation of Delay - The petitioner sought review of an order maintaining a 'no-cross' order due to non-deposit of costs - The High Court quashed the rejection of review and condonation applications, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine upon deposit of Rs.3000/- - Held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order rejecting the review application and condonation of delay should be set aside to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28/3/2011, allowed the applications Exh.118 and 119, set aside the 'no-cross' order dated 3/2/2010, and permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Review application
- condonation of delay
- no-cross order
- costs deposit
- opportunity to cross-examine
- Article 226
- Article 227
