SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KIRTAN PURTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) challenging the order dtd. 29/8/2019 passed in MAC Case No.296 of 2012, vide which its prayer to recall the prosecution witness for his cross-examination was rejected based on a memo filed by the learned Counsel for the Claimant (present Opposite Party No.1) to the effect, he is unable to produce the said witness for his cross-examination.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner-Insurance Company is that, being noticed by the Court below, it could not appear in time and could not be able to file its Written Statement on the date fixed. Hence, it was set ex-parte and the Claimant (present Opposite Party No.1) lead his evidence and documents were marked as Exts.1 to 9. Knowing about the said ex-parte order, the Petitioner-Insurance Company appeared and filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Order-9, Rule 7 of C.P.C. After the said Petition was allowed on 23/4/2018 by the Court below, cost being paid in terms of the said order, its Written Statement was accepted and taken into record. There after it came to its notice that during the said period, the claimant (present Opposite Party No.1) has already examined one witness. Knowing about the same, the Petitioner-Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) filed an application to recall all the prosecution witness at its cost.

(3.) In reply, learned Counsel for the Claimant (present Opposite Party No.1) opposed the said prayer made in the petition filed by the Insurance Company by filing a memo stating therein that he is unable to produce the witness for cross-examination. The Court below, without applying judicious mind, mechanically accepted the said memo, thereby debarred the present Petitioner-Insurance Company to cross-examine the prosecution witness, even though with all fairness, it was indicated in the prayer of the said petition that the said witness be recalled for his cross-examination at the cost of the present Petitioner-Insurance Company.