CENTRAL INDIA DISTRIBUTORS Vs. ZOEB VALI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 9.12.1993 is grossly erroneous and suffers from serious error of jurisdiction and it cannot be sustained under any provision of law much less under Order XVIII, Rule 2(4) C.P.C.

(2.) It would be .seen that M/s. Central India Distributors, appellant herein (for short the plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the Zoeb Vali and Others-non-applicants herein (for short the original defendants). In the said suit at the time of the examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff, the Trial Court by the impugned order directed that the examination-in-chief of all the witnesses of the plaintiff should be recorded first and thereafter the cross-examination be completed. The course adopted by the Trial Court is wholly unjustifiable and against the basic principles of recording the evidence. The expression examination appearing in Order XVIII Includes the examination-in-chief and cross-examination and not either examination-in-chief or cross-examination. The Trial Court has taken the aid of Order XVIII, Rule 2(4) of Code of Civil Procedure by observing that under the said provision on satisfaction and for proper reasons to be recorded, the Court may direct any party to examine any witness at any stage. That power which is given under Order XVIII, Rule 2(4), Code of Civil Procedure is confined to the exercise of the powers of examination of witnesses at any stage and not examining the one witness in piecemeal first recording examination-in-chief of all the witnesses produced by the parties first and then direct the cross-examination of these witnesses. Even if the reasons given in the order for adopting such a course are taken to be correct, they do not justify the Court to record examination-in-chief of all the witnesses produced by one party first and then direct the opponent to cross-examine the witnesses. The order passed by the 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur dated 9.12.1993 impugned in the present Revision is untenable and is liable to be quashed and is quashed accordingly. No costs. Revision allowed.