TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfered - imposition of cost upheld. Production of documents - Held that: - the Revisional Court has already given liberty to the petitioner to place on record the documents which may be relevant for the purposes of trial. In case, the petitioner requires to confront any witness with any document, which are not in his power or possession and which are required to be summoned from a third party, it would be open to the petitioner to apply to the Trial Court for the said purpose. Petition disposed off. - CRL.M.C. 1494/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - MR SANJEEV SACHDEVA J. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person. For the Respondent: Mr. Prince Jain, Advocate. JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.5425/2018 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 1494/2018 Crl.M.A.5426/2018 (stay) 1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. The petitioner impugns order dated 14.12.2017, whereby, the Revisional Court has allowed the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for the same and after recording the same, Ld. Trial Court may proceed ahead accordingly as per rules and procedures. (iv) Petitioner shall be having liberty to place on record documents, however, such document should be relevant subject to the merit of the case and such relevancy shall be subject to the decision of the Trial as the case may be. 6. The Trial Court, by its order dated 27.07.2017, noted as under:- ***** ***** ***** Perusal of the record shows that witness of the complainant has been cross-examined at length on three dates by the accused himself. The accused is at full liberty to ask about the arbitration record but he cannot compel the witness to produce the record if witness himself does not want to produce the same. The court, in such scenario, has directed the accused to continue with the cross-examination ask for production of arbitration record, if required which may be allowed by the court, if they are relevant for disposal of this case. However, the accused insists on the production of records first and then he will continue with cross examination. It appears that accused is deliberately creating difficulty for the court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought on record and he Should be allowed to cross examine CWl. The impugned order dated 27/07/2017 is perused vide which the conduct of the petitioner who is accused before the Ld. Trial Court has been considered and keeping in mind the same, right to cross-examination of CWl has been closed. It is reflected that, though respondent has been pressing hardly for dismissal of the present petition, however, he has no objection if the court grants him opportunity for the same, however, that should be subject to very heavy cost. 11. It is needless to say that the endevour of the court should be to decide the case on merits and not merely on the basis of the technicalities. The petitioner in the present case is arguing in person and he claims to be having knowledge of the law. Whatever the case may be, he should be equated with the counsel and presumed to be having knowledge of the entire procedure of law. So far as the submissions of the petitioner that he should be allowed to bring on record the arbitration proceedings by the Ld. Trial Court, I do not find any infirmity In the impugned order to this extent as it has been rightly observed that such plea taken by the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the arbitral record, which, as per the petitioner, is being relied on by the respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is only relying on the arbitration award and is not relying on the arbitration proceedings. He submits that whatever is sought to be relied on has been produced before the Court and, in case, the petitioner seeks to rely on any other part of the arbitral proceedings, he has already been given an opportunity by the Trial Court to produce the same in his defence. 13. The petitioner has referred to his application dated 27.07.2017 filed before the Trial Court seeking production of the Arbitral Record. 14. Perusal of the said application shows that the application runs into 31 pages, wherein, the petitioner was seeking to summon the arbitral record for the purposes of confronting a witness with the same. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties, I am of the view that the order of the Revisional Court, to some extent, calls for interference. 16. Insofar as the imposition of cost is concerned, since this is a discretionary power exercised by the Revisional Court, I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
