Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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