The Supreme Court has taken a view that, in appropriate cases, the Court can invoke the inherent powers to recall the witness for examination. The
inherent powers of the Court are not affected by the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Since the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of
the Indian Evidence Act, are interpreted by the Karnataka High Court, Chattisgarh High Court and by this Court also and view is taken that in
appropriate cases, where the defendant demonstrates that the co-
defendant's evidence would adversely affect his interest, cross examination
of such co-defendant is permissible.
Bombay High Court
Vinod S/o Khimji Lodaya v Muljibhai S/o Maujibhai Patel on 25 June, 2013
Bench: S. S. Shinde
Citation; 2013 (6) ALL M R 732
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the rt
learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. ou
2. The present Civil Revision Application takes exception to the C
Order dated 03/10/2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad, thereby rejecting the application below Exh. 80 filed by the
applicant.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the land bearing City Survey H
Nos. 12889, 12889/1 and 12889/2 i.e. old Survey No. 38 situated out side Jafar Gate, Mondha Road, Aurangabad is the subject matter of the y
proceedings before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in ba
Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005 and the Wakf Case No. 22 of 2005 pending before the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Wakf Case om
No. 22 of 2005 is already decided, however Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005 is yet pending before the Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. B
4. It is the further case of the applicant that the respondent No. 17 has initiated proceedings allegedly U/s 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995 by issuing notice. After the proceedings U/s 54 of the Wakf Act, the applicant has filed Wakf Case No. 22 of 2005 before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad praying for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the said rt
property. The respondent No. 17 has resisted the Suit filed by the applicant by filing its Written Statement. After framing of issues, the applicant ou
stepped in the witness box. The cross examination of the applicant is completed on 15/02/2011 in Wakf Suit No. 22 of 2005. The respondent C
No. 17 has not adduced any evidence. It is further case of the applicant that the application for amendment in Wakf Suit No. 22 of 2005 filed by the h
applicant was rejected. Being aggrieved by it, C.R.A. No. 123 of 2009 was ig
filed before this Court, which came to be allowed by Order dated H
22/07/2010. The proceedings of Wakf Suit No. 22 of 2005 were expedited by this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant informed that the proceedings in Wakf Suit No. 22 of 2005 are decided. y
ba
5. It is further case of the applicant that in view of the action of om
respondent No. 17 initiating the proceedings U/s 54 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the respondent Nos. 1 to 16 have filed Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005 before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad. It is the case of the applicant that this Court B
in C.R.A. No. 32 of 2011 directed the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad to expedite the hearing of Wakf Case No. 11 of 2005. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent No. 17 has adduced evidence, the affidavit of examination-in-chief was filed by one Aziz Ahmed S/o SirajAhmed on 13/09/2011. The witness of respondent No. 17 is cross examined by the Advocate of respondent Nos. 1 to 16. The application rt
below Exh. 78 was filed on behalf of the applicant for adjournment as the applicant was not present on the date of cross examination of respondent ou
No. 17 and the applicant wants to cross examine respondent No. 17. The Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad in stead of passing Order on Exh. 78, was C
pleased to pass Order below Exh. 74, wherein after the cross examination of witness of respondent No. 17, a note is written, saying that, the applicant h
has filed application for cross examination of said witness. ig
H
6. It is observed that both Suits can be disposed off togetherThe applicant herein filed application below Exh. 80, thereby praying for reviewing the order and further prayed to permit the applicant to cross y
ba
examine D.W. No. 1. The respondent No. 17 has resisted the application by filing Say and the Tribunal has rejected the application below Exh. 80 om
filed by the applicant in the Civil Revision Application. Hence this Civil Revision Application.
B
7. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, law is laid down in the case of Sohanlal & Ors. V/s Gulabchand reported in AIR 1966 Rajastan - 229 that co-defendant can cross examine the deposing defendant. Therefore, the applicant has every right to cross examine the witness of respondent No. 17. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 17 has not stepped in the witness box in the Suit instituted rt
by the applicant herein. This shows obvious intention to avoid cross examination by the applicant. It is further submitted that since the ou
respondent No. 1 herein i.e. the respondent No. 17 is the Officer of the Wakf Board, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent No. 17 if C
opportunity of cross examination to him is granted in favour of the applicant.
h
8.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the H
applicant that, in view of the Judgment of this Court in case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation V/s 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District y
Judge, Nagpur & Ors reported in 2007 (O) BCI - 490, and the Judgment ba
in case of Smt. Taruni Thakur & amp : others V/s Kamendra Singh & amp : others delivered in Writ Petition 227 No 3052 of 2010 decided by om
Chattisgarh High Court and also in case of Sri Mohamed Ziaulla V/s Mrs. Sorgra Begum and Anr. reported in ILR 1997 KAR - 1378, the defendant can cross examine the co-defendant. B
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that in view of the provisions of Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, only adversary can cross examine the plaintiff. The said provision does not permit the defendant to cross examine the co-defendant. The learned counsel invited my attention to the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in
the case of Hussens Hasanali Pulavwala V/s Sobbirbhai Hasanali Pulavwala & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 Gujarat - 190 and submitted ou
that the right of cross examination can be exercised only by adverse party. C
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the Suit filed by the applicant is already dismissed.
Therefore, in case the applicant i.e. original defendant No. 2 if allowed to
cross examine the defendant No. 1, in that case, it will give fresh cause of
action to the respondent No. 2 though his Suit is dismissed by the Wakf Tribunal.
11. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 18 invited my attention to the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil om
Procedure [ For short, ' C.P. C. ' ] and submits that there is no provision under C.P.C. under which the party can apply for recalling the witness for examination. In his submission, it is only in appropriate cases where Court B
deem it appropriate, the witness can be recalled for examination or cross examination as the case may be. However, the party has no right to recall the witness for examination or cross examination. The learned counsel invited my attention to Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that, it is contemplated by the said provision that, only adverse party has right to cross examine. It is submitted that in the present case,
the defendant No. 2 wish to cross examine the defendant No. 1 which is not permissible. There is no provision traceable in the Indian Evidence Act,
which would enable the defendant No. 2 to cross examine defendant No. 1. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Civil Revision Application is
devoid of any merits and deserves to be rejected.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
with their able assistance perused the grounds taken in the Civil Revision
Application, annexures thereto, the impugned Order passed by the Wakf Tribunal and also the Judgments of various High Courts and this Court cited across the bar.
13. It is not necessary to go into the details of the case. Suffice it om
to say that the prayer of the original defendant No. 2 i.e. the applicant herein, is to cross examine the respondent No. 1 i.e. defendant No. 17 herein, has been rejected by the Presiding Officer, Wakf Tribunal on the B
ground that, there is no provision for allowing the prayer of the applicant for cross examination of the defendant No. 1.
14. Upon careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has not noticed the Judgments of various High Courts except the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and rejected the prayer of
the applicant i.e. original defendant No. 2, for cross examination of defendant No. 1. The Karnataka High Court in case of Sri Mohamed Ziaulla ou
[ supra ] while interpreting the provisions of Section 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, in para Nos. 7 to 9 held thus, : C
" Section 137 specifically explains that the examination of a witness by the adverse party is cross h
examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act refers to ig
cross examination if the adverse party so desires after the witness is first examined in chief. These two H
sections of the Evidence Act make it abundantly clear that a party has a right of cross examining his adversary or his witness.
Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act do not ba
specifically refer to cross examination of co-defendant's witnesses. But, the courts have to adopt a golden rule that no evidence shall be received against any co- om
defendant or co-accused who had no opportunity of testing it by cross examination; as it would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused or co-defendant B
to cross examine witness called by one whose case was adverse to his, or who has given evidence against him. If there is no dash of interest or if nothing has been said against the other party, there can not be any right of cross examination. A short but, interesting discussion is found in Sarkar's Evidence at Page 1342 13th Edition. Similar opinion is found in Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by M.Monir, Third
Edition Page 1114.
ou
This very question was debated in the English Courts as far back as in 1920 vide a decision in LORD V. COLVIN 1855, 24 LJ Ch 517, 3 Drew - C
222. The learned Judge in the said case after consulting all the equity judges held that before an
examiner in Chancery, one defendant might cross examine another defendant's witness. The same right
exists between respondent and co-respondent in divorce cases provided either is hostile to the other, for if
friendly, eg. where both deny the adultery, each can only be examined as the other's witness and not cross- examined. A defendant may cross-examine his co-
defendant who gives evidence or any of his co- ba
defendant's witnesses if his co-defendant's interest is hostile to his own. Therefore, the procedure that has om
been followed by the Courts in England and in India has not left this question in doubt. Where it is shown that the interest between the defendants' inter-se conflict each other, the other defendant has necessarily
to be treated as an adversary and he is certainly entitled to cross examine the other defendant or his witnesses ".
15. This Court in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation [ supra ] has taken a view that the examination/cross examination by the co-defendant is permissible since the object of leading rt
evidence and cross examination is to find out the truth. The cross examination assist the Court in arriving at the just and proper conclusion. ou
16. In another Judgment of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case C
of Smt. Taruni Thakur & amp; others [ supra ], the High Court has taken a view that the cross examination by the co-defendant is permissible.
17.
In the facts of the present case, it is the case of the applicant H
that by way of registered Lease Deed executed in his favour, he is occupying the suit property and the original plaintiffs are his tenants. Therefore, in case, if he is not allowed to cross examine the original defendant No. 1, it
will cause prejudice to his interest. Hence, in stead of going into the details of the facts of the case, suffice it to say that the cross examination of the co- om
defendant by the defendant is permissible in view of the Judgments of the various High Courts cited supra. B
18. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 18 that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. only empowers the Court to call the witness for examination and the party has no right to ask for recalling the witness, is required to be appreciated in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Velusamy V/s V.N.Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC - 275.
The Supreme Court has taken a view that, in appropriate cases, the Court can invoke the inherent powers to recall the witness for examination. The ou
inherent powers of the Court are not affected by the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Since the provisions of Sections 137 and 138 of C
the Indian Evidence Act, are interpreted by the Karnataka High Court, Chattisgarh High Court and by this Court also and view is taken that in h
appropriate cases, where the defendant demonstrates that the co- ig
defendant's evidence would adversely affect his interest, cross examination
of such co-defendant is permissible.
19. In light of the above discussion, the impugned order deserves ba
to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. The prayer of the applicant to cross examine the defendant No. 1 is
allowed. The Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad to fix the date for cross examination of the defendant No. 1 by the applicant herein i.e. original defendant No. 2. On the said date, the applicant to cross examine the B
original defendant No. 1 and should not ask for further time. After the applicant is allowed to cross examine the defendant No. 1, the Wakf Tribunal should proceed with the hearing of the Suit.
20. Rule made absolute in above terms. The Civil Revision Application is allowed to above extent and stands disposed of.
[ S.S.SHINDE, J. ]
KNP/C.R.A. 249.2011 - [J]
No comments:
Post a Comment