HIRU Vs. TULSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 10th March, 2010 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for recalling DW-4 for cross-examination.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd August, 2009 statement of DW-4 was recorded. It is apparent from the order sheet of the said date that the plaintiff was present in person but his counsel was not present. The order itself shows that the plaintiff was apprised of his Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. right to cross-examine defendant No.4 but he could not cross-examine the witness.

(3.) In our system of adversarial litigation it can hardly be expected that a party belonging to rural area will be able to cross-examine the witness. The witness i.e. DW-4 was none other than defendant No.1 and one of the most important witnesses in this case. In fact, it would have been more appropriate for the Court to have adjourned the matter on 3rd August, 2009 when counsel for the plaintiff was not present. Immediately, thereafter an application was moved in which it was stated that the counsel could not be present since he was out of station and therefore request was made that DW-4 be recalled for cross- examination.