NATHU Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6 1. 1983, whereby after recording the statements of P. W. 1 Roshan Lal and P. W. 2 Durgashanker, the case was posted for recording remaining evidence of the plaintiff. The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the counsel for the defendant-petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine P. W. 1. Cross-examination was closed and in respect of P. W. 2 it was stated that the counsel for the defendant does not want to cross-examine. The defendant-petitioner has submitted the certified copy of the statements of P. W. 1 Roshan Lal and P. W. 2 Durgashanker. A perusal of the statement of Roshan Lal would reveal that the defendant's counsel started cross-examination. After putting 3-4 questions in cross examination, the learned Munsiff recorded in the statement that the defend-ants's counsel is not proceeding with the cross-examination and had busied himself in looking into the file and wasting the time unnecessarily, then he proceeded to close the cross-examination. In the cross-examination of P. W. 2 it is recorded that the defendant's counsel does not want to cross-examine the witness.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to allow the defendant-petitioner to cross-examine P. W. 1 Roshan Lal as well as P. W. 2 Durgashanker. It appears that the defendant's counsel in the context of closer of cross-examination of PW. l expressed not to cross-examine P. W. 2 and the Court closed the cross-examination of P. W. I, as the defendant's counsel was keeping himself busy in locking into the file. It may be stated that a lawyer owes some duty to the Court, as well as to the client. The court's time undoubtedly, is precious and the lawyer is expected to come prepared for cross-examination. This duty is not only owed to the Court, but this duty is also owed to the client, as well. Without preparation of the case, he wolud not be able to discharge faithfully the duty, the lawyer owes to the client. Cross-examination of the witness requires preparation of the cross-examination in advance, so that he may be able to effectively cross examine the witness having reference with the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by them. The court may be justified, when cross-examination is not being conducted for sufficiently long time. The court cannot wait indefinitely and allow the counsel to prepare the cross-examination at that stage. Something must have been transpired in the court that led to the making of the statement by the counsel that he does not want to cross-examine P. W. 2. I need not enter into any inquiry as to whether the order of closer of cross-examination was justified or not, but to me it appears that the conduct of the lawyer affects his client and unwarranted conduct on the part of the lawyer may lead to injustice to the party. So, in my opinion the interest of justice demands that an opportunity may be given to the defendant-petitioner to cross-examine P. W. 1 Roshan Lal as well as P. W. 2 Durgashanker, and it is hoped that the defendant's lawyer will now conduct himself having due regard to the observations made above.