GANGA DEVI G. Vs. DR. LATHAKUMARI K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree was passed in a suit for realization of money based on a cheque by the trial court, against which the defendant came up mainly on the ground that the court below accepted additional proof affidavit and documents produced along with it exhibited as A3, A4 and A5,without affording an opportunity of crossexamination. An additional proof affidavit was submitted after the examination of plaintiff and closing of the evidence. Along with the additional affidavit, three documents were produced, which were marked as Exts.A3 to A5. Additional affidavit and the documents marked were taken up, discussed and appreciated as piece of evidence and relied on by the trial court without affording an opportunity to crossexamine the witness or the documents thereof. Thereby, the mandate under Sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act has been overlooked by the trial court.

(2.) In State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) [(1998)3 SCC 561),the Apex Court had considered the principle embodied under Sec. 138 of the Evidence Act, which confers a valuable right of cross-examination of a witness and documents tendered in evidence by opposite party and the enlarged scope under Section 146 of the Evidence Act to cross examine a witness to test his veracity.

(3.) The right of cross-examination is not a mere formality to be complied with, but it should reflect sufficient opportunity afforded to cross-examine the witness on all disputed matters. The extensive nature of right of cross-examination was also laid down by the Apex Court in Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1563), wherein a new and important matter was allowed to be introduced in reexamination without affording sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the newly introduced matter and it was held that the three minutes time given for cross-examination is insufficient.