Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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