Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN LAL versus NAGA RAM & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAN LAL v NAGA RAM & ANR - CW Case No. 143 of 2004 [2005] RD-RJ 27 (4 January 2005)

S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.143/2004

Mohan lal vs

Nagaram & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : - 4.1.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. Jaswantmal Bhandari, for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19th Sept., 2003 as well as against the order dated 15th July, 2003. By the order dated 15th July, 2003, the trial court closed the cross-examination of

PW-5 Moolchand. By order dated 19th Sept., 2003, the court rejected the application of the defendant seeking permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness PW-5 Moolchand.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff and plaintiff examined his witness

PW-5 Moolchand. At that time, the counsel for the defendant was busy in another court and before the counsel could reach to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, the court passed the order of closure of right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the defendant reached in the court at about 12.30 PM. The plaintiff also submitted the application on the same day, i.e., on 15th July, 2003 alongwith the affidavit of the defendant. Despite this fact, the court after observing that the counsel was busy in another court, cannot be a ground for adjourning the case rejected the petitioner's application for permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witness.

After going through the facts of the case and the reasons given by the trial court, this Court is of the firm opinion that the trial court has committed serious error in closing the right of the defendant to cross- examine the witness PW-5 Moolchand and further committed serious error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner filed on the same day for permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness PW-5 Moolchand because the trial court should not have closed the evidence in such hot haste.

Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the orders of the trial court dated 15th July, 2003 and 19th Sept., 2003 are set aside. The defendant may cross-examine the plaintiff's witness PW-5 on the date fixed by the trial court. On that day, the plaintiff shall keep PW-5 Moolchand ready for cross-examination and in case there is difficulty in producing the witness by the plaintiff, the court may, by the process of the court, summon the witness for cross-examination.

(Prakash Tatia), J. c.p.goyal/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.