MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

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.

Similar News