Bombay High Court Allows Cross-Examination of Witness in Civil Suit Subject to Costs and Peremptory Condition. Petitioner-Defendant Granted One Final Opportunity to Cross-Examine PW3 Neha Shelke with Costs of Rs.750 and Forfeiture of Right on Default.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 109
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Kamlabai wd/o Bhaiyaji Jangde, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 3274 of 2012. By that order, the trial court denied the petitioner-defendant an opportunity to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke, a witness from N.I.T., on the ground that the defendant had earlier failed to avail the opportunity and the plaintiff was from Raipur and required to attend proceedings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the matter by permitting the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine the witness, subject to payment of costs of Rs.750/- to the respondent on the date of first appearance. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 13.09.2016, and the trial court was to ensure the witness's presence. The High Court further ordered that if the defendant fails to cross-examine on that date, the right to cross-examination shall stand forfeited, and no adjournment shall be granted. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and rule was made absolute.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Denial of Opportunity - The trial court denied the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke on the ground that the defendant had earlier failed to avail the opportunity and the plaintiff was from Raipur. The High Court held that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the witness subject to payment of costs of Rs.750/- and with a condition that if the defendant fails to cross-examine on the fixed date, the right to cross-examination shall stand forfeited. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in denying the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine a witness due to previous failure to avail the opportunity.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 and permitted the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke subject to payment of costs of Rs.750/- to the respondent on the date of first appearance. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 13.09.2016, and if the defendant fails to cross-examine on that date, the right to cross-examination shall stand forfeited. No adjournment shall be granted.

Law Points

  • Right to cross-examination
  • opportunity of hearing
  • costs for delay
  • peremptory order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 176

WRIT PETITION NO. 6300 OF 2014

2016-08-22

R. K. Deshpande

Shri N.G. Jetha for Petitioner, Shri M.N. Upadhyay for Respondent

Smt. Kamlabai wd/o Bhaiyaji Jangde

Smt. Deshna wd/o Sanjay Jangde

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging trial court order denying cross-examination of a witness in a regular civil suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner-defendant sought to set aside the order dated 15.07.2014 and be permitted to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke.

Filing Reason

The trial court denied the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke on the ground that the defendant had earlier failed to avail the opportunity and the plaintiff was from Raipur.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 below Exh.87 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3274 of 2012.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in denying the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine a witness due to previous failure to avail the opportunity.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner-defendant sought permission to cross-examine PW3 Neha Shelke. The respondent-plaintiff opposed on the ground of earlier failure and inconvenience.

Ratio Decidendi

A party should not be denied the right to cross-examine a witness solely on the ground of previous failure to avail the opportunity, but such opportunity can be granted subject to costs and a peremptory condition that failure to cross-examine on the fixed date will result in forfeiture of the right.

Judgment Excerpts

By the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 passed below Exh.87 by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 3274 of 2012, the petitionerdefendant is denied an opportunity to cross examine the witness of the plaintiff, PW3 Neha Shelke from the N.I.T. In view of above, the matter can be disposed of by permitting the petitionerdefendant to cross examine the witness PW3 Neha Shelke.

Procedural History

The trial court passed the impugned order on 15.07.2014 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3274 of 2012. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter and disposed it on 22.08.2016.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiffs in Partition Compromise Possession Suit Under CPC and Bihar Land Reforms Act. Constructive Possession of Homestead Allotted Under Unexecuted Partition Compromise Sufficient to Maintain Separate Suit for Recovery Despi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitions of Contractual Employees Against Municipal Corporation for Regularization and Equal Pay. Court Holds That Long-Term Contractual Workers Are Entitled to Consideration for Regularization Under Articles 14 and 16 of th...