Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2013 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Zari-Jamni, District Yavatmal, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 7.4.2014 passed below Exh.72. By that order, the trial court rejected their application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1 on the ground that granting such permission would be an abuse of process of law, as the defendants were seeking to cross-examine at their leisure and pleasure. The High Court observed that the right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right and cannot be denied merely on the ground of abuse of process without examining whether there was sufficient cause for the delay. The court noted that the trial court had not recorded any finding that the defendants were deliberately delaying the proceedings. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1 on the same day, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500 to the plaintiff. The rule was made absolute accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Right to Cross-Examine - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 18 Rule 2 - The trial court rejected the defendants' application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on the ground that it would be an abuse of process of law. The High Court held that the right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right and cannot be denied on the ground of abuse of process without considering whether there was sufficient cause for the delay. The impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to permit cross-examination subject to payment of costs. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendants' application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on the ground that it would be an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.4.2014 is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioners/defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1 on the same day, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500 to the plaintiff. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Right to cross-examine is a valuable right
- Denial of cross-examination without sufficient cause is illegal
- Abuse of process of law cannot be assumed without evidence of deliberate delay
- Trial court must consider sufficient cause for delay before rejecting permission
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 99
Writ Petition No.2852 of 2014
Shri M.P.Kariya for the Petitioners, Shri R.R.Shrivastava for Caveator R-1 to 4
Anandrao @ Amrut S/o Krushnarao Tirmanwar, Smt. Anusauabai W/o Anandrao @ Amrut Tirmanwar, Asmita D/o Anandrao @ Amrut Tirmanwar, Anju S/o Anandrao @ Amrut Tirmanwar
Prashant S/o Madhukar Patil, Prashil S/o Madhukar Patil, Smt. Ramabai Wd/o Madhukar Patil, Smt. Prasannalaxmi Atmachran
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court order rejecting permission to cross-examine plaintiff's witness.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/defendants sought to set aside the order dated 7.4.2014 and to be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the defendants' application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on the ground that it would be an abuse of process of law.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order below Exh.72 in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2013.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendants' application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness on the ground of abuse of process of law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners/defendants argued that the right to cross-examine is a valuable right and the trial court erred in rejecting their application.
The respondents/plaintiffs supported the trial court's order, contending that the defendants were seeking to delay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right and cannot be denied on the ground of abuse of process of law without considering whether there was sufficient cause for the delay. The trial court must record a finding of deliberate delay before rejecting such an application.
Judgment Excerpts
The right to cross-examine a witness is a valuable right and cannot be denied on the ground that it would be an abuse of process of law without considering whether there was sufficient cause for the delay.
The trial court is directed to permit the petitioners/defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1 on the same day, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500 to the plaintiff.
Procedural History
The petitioners/defendants filed an application (Exh.72) in Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 2013 seeking permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness No.1. The trial court rejected the application on 7.4.2014. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 2
