JABBAR KHAN Vs. RAUF BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24-10-2013 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 110-A/2009. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner/plaintiff has been denied opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses produced by defendants inter alia on the ground that defendants had produced the witnesses at 1 o'clock; case was fixed for cross-examination at 3.30 p.m.; and, defendants' witnesses alongwith Counsel were present at 3.00 o'clock, however, request was made on behalf of plaintiffs Senior Counsel, Shri Hariprasad Sharma for deferment of cross-examination, as he was occupied in another case in a different Court. According to the Court, uptill 5 o'clock, as the Counsel for plaintiff did not turn up for cross-examination and, therefore, it closed the right of plaintiff for cross-examining the defendants' witnesses.

(2.) It is submitted by the plaintiff/petitioner that it was not a deliberate intentional attempt on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff's Counsel to avoid cross-examination of defendants' witnesses. As plaintiffs Counsel was on his legs before the another Court, therefore, request was made for deferment of cross-examination. It is further contended that right of cross-examination is a precious right and denial thereof under such circumstance shall be to the grave prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is prayed that an opportunity to cross-examine defendants' witnesses may kindly be afforded to plaintiff subject to such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondents/defendants supported the order passed by the Trial Court. Having heard Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion, as a matter of fact, observance of discipline of law in Court proceedings is always appreciated. Expeditious disposal of cases is certainly need of the hour, looking to the rise in institution of number of cases and pendency thereof, to maintain faith, trust and confidence reposed by the people/litigants on Court, however, this has to be tempered with the cherished goal of complete substantive justice between the parties in our legal system of judicial disposition. Merely because the plaintiffs Counsel could not appear at 3.30 p.m. on 24-10-2013 for the reason that plaintiffs Senior Counsel was occupied in another Court, as was informed to the Court, instead of taking exception thereto, the Court below could have deferred cross-examination in the interest of justice unless and until the reason given for non-availability of the Counsel was tainted with some oblique motive to achieve collateral purposes, which is not the case in hand. Therefore, with due regard to the concept of justice, equity and good conscience it is hereby ordered that the Trial Court shall fix a date for cross-examination of defendants' witnesses examined on 24-10-2013 and afford an opportunity to plaintiff to cross-examine them subject to such terms and conditions the Trial Court deems fit and proper including cost. The Trial Court may also order that no adjournment shall be granted. The parties shall co-operate with the Court in expeditious completion of proceedings. No unwarranted adjournments shall be sought by the parties.