RAVITA Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1714/2019 & CM APPL. 51748/2019

(2.) The present petition under Article 227 challenges the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2019 by which the ld. Trial Court has permitted the reopening of the cross-examination of DW-2 - Ms. Manisha at the behest of the Plaintiff/Respondent. The case of the Petitioner/Defendant is that Ms. Manisha was cross-examined by the Plaintiff on 8th February, 2019 and the matter was thereafter listed for final arguments. At that stage, the Plaintiff moved an application relying upon various documents to argue that the statement made by Ms. Manisha that she signs in Hindi is not correct as she has also signed in English. Along with this application certain documents were also annexed. Considering that application, the impugned order has been passed by which the Trial court has permitted Ms. Manisha to be cross- examined again on 3rd December, 2019.

(3.) Ld. counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Bagai Construction Thr. Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. M/s Gupta Building Material Store, 2013 (14) SCC 1, the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Sarat Chandra Mohapatra v. Narasingha Mohapatra & Anr., II (2017) CLT 369 (Ori) as well as the Calcutta High Court judgment in Sipra Chatterjee v. Samir Ranjan Mukherjee, II (2018) CLT 101 (Cal.) to argue that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is only a provision which enables Court to clarify the doubts and is not meant to be used by the parties who wish to fill up lacunae in the evidence.