Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Ajit Sukhijia, filed a suit in the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, seeking to declare a Will as null and void on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature. During the trial, while cross-examining DW-1 (a witness for the respondents), the petitioner's counsel put five questions which were disallowed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that they were irrelevant. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The petitioner argued that the learned Judge erroneously refused the questions, which were material for deciding the controversy, and that the cross-examination is a strong weapon in the hands of the opposite party. The respondents contended that the questions were irrelevant and had no nexus with the issues framed in the suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the right to cross-examination is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed without justification. The court noted that the suit involves a challenge to a Will on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature, and it is well settled that in such cases, the plaintiff is entitled to draw suspicion regarding execution of the Will. The court found that the questions disallowed were relevant to the issues and that the trial court had not recorded any reasons for disallowing them. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to put the disallowed questions to DW-1 and proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Right to Cross-Examine - The right to cross-examination is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed without justification; the court cannot call upon the party to justify the reason for asking questions. (Paras 3-6)
B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Relevancy of Questions - Section 5 - In a suit to declare a Will as null and void on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature, questions aimed at drawing suspicion regarding execution of the Will are relevant and cannot be disallowed merely because they are not part of pleadings. (Paras 4-6)
C) Civil Procedure - Interference by Trial Court - The trial court's order disallowing questions without recording reasons is unsustainable; the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside such order. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in disallowing five questions put to DW-1 in cross-examination on the ground of irrelevance, and whether such disallowance caused prejudice to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to put the disallowed questions to DW-1 and proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Right to cross-examination is a valuable right
- questions cannot be disallowed as irrelevant without recording reasons
- cross-examination is a strong weapon in the hands of the opposite party
- court cannot call upon the party to justify the reason for asking questions
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 240
WRIT PETITION NO. 411 OF 2015
Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. P. Hegde and Ms. A. Naik for the Petitioner; Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vinita Palyekar for the Respondents
Mr. Edgar Francisco Valles, Miss Filomena Fernandes, Mrs. Guida Da Silva, Dr. Maria Lilia de Sequeira Sukhija, Mrs. Rajni Porob, Mr. Chandrakant Pissurlenkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, disallowing five questions put to DW-1 in cross-examination on the ground of irrelevance.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and direction to permit the petitioner to put the disallowed questions to DW-1.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's counsel was not allowed to put five questions to DW-1 during cross-examination in a suit to declare a Will as null and void on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature.
Previous Decisions
The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, passed orders disallowing the questions on the ground that they were irrelevant.
Issues
Whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in disallowing five questions put to DW-1 in cross-examination on the ground of irrelevance?
Whether such disallowance caused prejudice to the petitioner?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The learned Judge erroneously refused the questions which were material for deciding the controversy; cross-examination is a strong weapon and the court cannot call upon the party to justify the reason for asking questions; in a suit to declare a Will as null and void on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature, it is open to the plaintiff to draw suspicion regarding execution of the Will.
Respondents: The questions disallowed were irrelevant and had no nexus with the issues framed in the suit; the questions were not part of the pleadings and thus cannot be put to the witness.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to cross-examination is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed without justification. In a suit to declare a Will as null and void on grounds of coercion and unnatural nature, questions aimed at drawing suspicion regarding execution of the Will are relevant and cannot be disallowed merely because they are not part of pleadings. The trial court must record reasons for disallowing questions.
Judgment Excerpts
The cross examination is a strong weapon in the hands of the opposite party and, as such, it was not open to the learned Judge to call upon the Petitioners to justify the reason why the questions were being asked.
The right to cross-examination is a valuable right and cannot be curtailed without justification.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, to declare a Will as null and void. During trial, while cross-examining DW-1, the petitioner's counsel put five questions which were disallowed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground of irrelevance. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 5
- Constitution of India: Article 227
