9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1556 - HC - Indian LawsSuit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Trial Court dismissed application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC - seeking recall and re-examination of the defendant witness on the points of demarcation and diversion of the disputed land - Validity of order passed by the learned Trial Court - HELD THAT - On perusal of the evidence of defendant Abhayraj Singh (DW-1) it is apparent that he was examined-in-chief on 20.11.2024. He was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the plaintiff. After his cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff plaintiff himself who is an advocate sought permission to cross examine defendant. As counsel appearing for the plaintiff did not raise any objection the Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant and thereafter a lengthy cross-examination was made by the plaintiff himself who is a practicing advocate. His evidence was closed after examining and cross-examining him fully. Plaintiff moved application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC stating that he wanted to cross-examine defendant further on the points of demarcation and diversion. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties in its impugned order made it clear that in para 8 9 10 and 14 of the cross-examination of the defendant specific questions have been put about demarcation and diversion of the disputed land and dismissed the application. On perusal of the impugned order and the cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff and plaintiff himself who is a practicing advocate it appears that defendant Abhayraj Singh was cross-examined fully and only thereafter he was discharged. Therefore it is apparent that application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff is nothing but an attempt to prolong the trial and fill up lacuna. Thus no impropriety illegality or incorrectness is visible in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. Consequently this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of the Trial Court's dismissal of the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall and re-examine the defendant witness Relevant legal framework and precedents: Order 18 Rule 17 CPC permits a party to recall a witness for further examination or cross-examination if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of justice. However, this provision is not to be used to prolong the trial unnecessarily or to fill gaps that could have been addressed during the initial examination or cross-examination. The Courts have consistently held that the right to recall is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court carefully examined the evidence on record, particularly the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the defendant witness Abhayraj Singh (DW-1). The defendant was examined-in-chief on 20.11.2024 and was cross-examined extensively by the plaintiff's counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiff himself, being an advocate, was permitted by the Trial Court to cross-examine the defendant witness further, which he did at length. The Trial Court noted that specific questions regarding demarcation and diversion of the disputed land were already put to the defendant during these cross-examinations (paras 8, 9, 10, and 14 of cross-examination). Key evidence and findings: The Trial Court's order and the cross-examination transcript reveal that the defendant witness was fully examined on the relevant points, including the disputed demarcation and diversion issues. The plaintiff's subsequent application to recall the witness was therefore seen as an attempt to reopen evidence already thoroughly explored. Application of law to facts: Applying the principles governing Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court found that the Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application. The plaintiff had adequate opportunity to cross-examine the defendant witness on all material points, including those now sought to be revisited. The attempt to recall the witness was viewed as a strategy to prolong the trial rather than a genuine need to clarify or supplement evidence. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's refusal to recall the defendant witness was erroneous because certain points of demarcation and diversion were not put during the initial cross-examination. However, the Court noted that the plaintiff, being an advocate, had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness himself after the counsel's cross-examination and had in fact done so extensively. This undermined the petitioner's contention that the witness was not fully cross-examined on the relevant issues. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Trial Court's order dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was neither improper nor illegal. The application was rightly rejected as it was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and did not meet the threshold for recalling a witness. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
This statement encapsulates the Court's core legal reasoning that the right to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not absolute but subject to judicial discretion exercised to prevent abuse of process. The Court established the principle that once a witness has been fully examined and cross-examined on relevant points, an application to recall the witness for further cross-examination on the same issues can be refused to avoid unnecessary prolongation of trial. On the final determinations:
|
