PT PREM NATH Vs. TEJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the learned Sub -Judge, Bhadarwah dated 13 -5 -70 whereby he has recalled one witness for the plaintiff namely Kotwal Narinjan Dass for cross -examination by the defendant. The learned Judge has passed this order under his inherent powers under section 151 Civil Pr: Code.

(2.) THE brief facts which have given rise to this revision petition are that a suit has been going on between the parties from 6 -10 -1957. The defendant was represented by Shri Niranjan Dass Kotwal for some time when on 14 -6 -1963 he was present as a witness for the other side. But he sought an adjournment to find out certain papers before giving evidence. On 26 -7 -1963 the witness was again present but the counsel succeeding Kotwal Niranjan Dass Lala Hem raj was not present. Therefore this witness was not examined on this date also. The case was adjourned to 18 -9 -1963. On that date part statement of this witness was recorded and the case was adjourned to 24 -9 -63. On that date the presiding Officer was on leave. On 17 -10 -63 which was the date subsequent to this date, the statement of this witness was completed. It appears that no question in cross -examination was put to this witness by counsel appearing for the other side. The defendant later on 2 -5 -1970 applied for recalling this witness for purposes of cross -examination. This application was opposed by the plaintiff but his objections were disallowed and the learned Judge passed the order under revision. In his order the learned Judge remarked: - ............I stick to the opinion that the procedural law is not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. It is rather meant to facilitate the same. Assuming that Order 18 Rule 17 applies to cases where the court deems it proper to recall a witness for putting some more questions to him even this court is not so helpless as to allow the ends of justice to be frustrated.

(3.) THE court has plenty of powers which are inherently vested in it and which are specifically laid down in the provisions i.e. Sec. 151 CPC. The Judgment then proceeds to say: - "............The record shows that he has not been cross -examined although an opportunity was afforded to the defendant to do so. The reason for not cross -examining him is very much obvious because the counsel who could have cross -examined the witness was himself put in the witness box and the defendant was left without any legal assistance could not be cross -examined ž ........."