U K GHOSH Vs. VOLTAS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order in a high valuation suit and counter-claim tried at Talcher is impugned in this Civil Revision. Earlier this Court had fixed time for disposal of the suit which could not be materialised because counterclaim could not be made ready as stated before me. In such circumstances, trial court gave importance for hearing of the suit expeditiously. After witnesses for plaintiff were examined, on 6/07/1992, D. W. 1 was examined in-chief on behalf of the defendant. He is the Chief Commercial Manager, a high officer of defendant Company. On 7th, this witness was cross-examined at length covering almost the entire day, as reported to me. After completion of cross-examination, his evidence was closed and defendant was to examine further witnesses next day. An application was filed on the 8th stating that P. W. 1 may be recalled for further crossekamination as some questions could not be put being left out though they are material both for the purpose of the suit as well as the counter-claim. Trial court did not accommodate the plaintiff. Hence, this Civil Revision was filed against the order refusing the prayer.

(2.) Mr. Palit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witness is very important witness not only for the purpose of the case of the plaintiff but also in support of the counter-claim. It is true that extensive cross-examination covering about 7 pages was made. However, on scrutiny it was found that some important questions have been left out. Court ought to have exercised the discretion to recall the witness when at the earliest opportunity in the next morning itself prayer was made to recall the witness.

(3.) Mr. B. B. Ratho, learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that even plaintiff was represented by an eminent counsel who is an expert in cross-examination and there was no scope for any omission specially when a witness was cross-examined at length for the entire day, prayer on the next morning for further cross-examination is only an afterthought which ought not to be permitted. Mr. Ratho further submitted that it was open to plaintiff not to close the cross-examination in the last hour but to keep it for continuing the next day so that plaintiff could have verified in the night and ask the question next day. When the witness had already left for Bombay, trial court rightly rejected the prayer of plaintiff. Such recalling would defeat the anxiety of this Court as well as of the trial court for early disposal which is a pubilc policy and would be costly to the defendant since absence of such high official would affect the functioning of the company. Since recalling the witness would be filling up of the lacuna of plaintiff, such prayer is also not to be accepted.