Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

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

Similar News