A Litigant’s Right to Cross-Examine Cannot Be Denied in a Nonchalant Way: Delhi High Court

Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Treatment Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

The primary legal issue revolved around the right to cross-examine witnesses and the admissibility of additional documents in a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The dispute concerned property transactions involving the late Guru Dutt Chhabra. After his demise, his legal heirs, led by Anita Chhabra, sought recovery of Rs. 66,00,000 from the petitioner, Surender Kumar. The trial court had denied Kumar the right to cross-examine witnesses and dismissed his application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC for challenging the admissibility of certain documents.

Justice Kaur observed, “The cross-examination of a witness is to be conducted to elucidate the credibility of testimony of a witness and is an important tool to extract truth from the evidence of the witness. Therefore, such an important right cannot be denied to a litigant in a nonchalant way.” The court overturned the trial court’s decision, reinstating the petitioner’s right to cross-examine.

The court upheld the admissibility of additional documents, noting, “While permitting the relief of amendment based on ‘new documents’, this Court allowed the respondents to place the documents annexed with application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on record.” However, it was emphasized that these documents are subject to the test of admissibility and relevancy.

The High Court of Delhi set aside the trial court’s order denying the petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses and upheld the decision to admit additional documents into the record, with the caveat regarding their admissibility and relevancy.

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Surender Kumar Vs. Anita Chhabra & Ors.

Download Judgment

Share: