TARUN KHURANA Vs. KRISHNA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugning the order dated 14.11.2011 of Civil Judge in Suit No. 367 of 2010 whereby an application under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act of the plaintiff (the respondent herein) was allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant/defendant in the suit which has been filed against him by the respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff had examined PW2 Ashwani Kumar Mittal as one of his witnesses. The plaintiff/respondent had moved application under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act for re-examination of PW2 which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide the impugned order against cost of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, this PW2 was recalled and re-examined on 02.12.2011 in view of the order dated 14.11.2011.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent/plaintiff. As regard the power of the court to recall any witness for re-examination, the same is contained in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. This provision also creates a distinct right of a party to call a witness for re-examination. There is, however, a caveat that such re-examination is to be directed to the explanation of the matter referred to in cross examination; and if any new matter is introduced in re-examination, that has to be with the permission of the court and the opposite party would have further right to cross examine the witness upon that new matter. That being the position of law, there cannot be any dispute that the re-examination of a witness could be for explanation of the matter referred in cross examination and also, with the permission of the court to the new matter.