UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Impugned Order Set Aside, Revision Petition Allowed: High Court Emphasizes on Complete Cross-Examination and Observance of Procedural Norms

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent ruling, emphasized the importance of complete cross-examination and adherence to procedural norms in judicial proceedings. The court set aside an impugned order that prematurely closed the evidence of the petitioner, underscoring the necessity of providing ample opportunity for cross-examination and proper summoning of records.

In the case "Vijay Kumar Vs Harmesh Kumar and Ors", the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, challenged an order dated 29.11.2022 that closed his evidence as defendant No.1 in a lower court. The issue revolved around the incomplete cross-examination of the petitioner and the non-observance of procedural requirements for recording witness statements and summoning necessary records.

Court Assessment and Observation:

Justice Archana Puri noted the irregularities in the proceedings, especially regarding the cross-examination of the petitioner and the handling of witness statements and records. The court observed:

Repeated Adjournments and Pandemic Impact: The case saw numerous adjournments, partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to restrictive working conditions.

Incomplete Cross-Examination: The cross-examination of the petitioner (DW-1) was not completed, and the lower court overlooked this fact when it prematurely closed the evidence.

Failure to Summon Necessary Records: The court noted that the required records for cross-examination were not adequately summoned, and this oversight was not brought to the court's attention by either party.

The judgment was based on the principles of natural justice and the procedural norms under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It highlighted the importance of complete cross-examination and the proper conduct of judicial proceedings.

The High Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the revision petition. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs to the “Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER”. The court also instructed the lower court to record the petitioner's statement within three weeks of his appearance and ensure that the necessary records for cross-examination are furnished promptly.

Date of Decision: 01.02.2024

Vijay Kumar Vs Harmesh Kumar and Ors

Latest Legal News