Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

Latest Legal News