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

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