CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 01 OHC CK 0064

Dhruba Charan Mohanty vs Krushna Mohan Mohanty and Another and Dr. Basant Kumar Mohanty and Another

Orissa High Court · Decided on 16 January 2003 · Citation: (2003) 95 CLT 597

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Tripathy, J
CASE NUMBER
CRP No. 302 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 371 words

P.K. Tripathy, J.

P.K. Tripathy, J.—This Civil Revision is taken up out of turn from the weekly list on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner with the consent of learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, who are the contesting party in the Court below.

2.

Heard.

3.

The short and simple question which is to be adjudicated in the application u/s 115, CPC is as to whether learned District Judge, Puri was justified in allowing the application for re-examination of P.W. No. 1 only for the limited purpose to get a categorical answer relating to the date on which he came to know about the existence of the ''Will''. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire cross-examination made by the petitioner shall be nullified by that re-examination. This Court does not agree with that contention of the petitioner. A dispute comes to the Court for adjudication in accordance with law. One answer or other allowed to be put for clarifications cannot nullify the claim or defence of a particular party. Apart from that, the discretion which is vested in the Court below for recalling a witness for re-examination has not been exercised by the learned District Judge either illegally or arbitrarily. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. However, It is made clear that since P. W. No. 1 shall be recalled for putting a particular question, thereafter the opposite party, i.e., the petitioner in this revision, should be provided with opportunity to cross-examine.

The Civil Revision is accordingly not admitted and disposed of with the above observation.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since that proceeding has been posted to tomorrow for re-examination of P.W. 1, it will not be possible on the part of the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order before the Court below by tomorrow. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also agrees to that difficulty of the petitioner. Under such circumstance, it is ordered that if the petitioner shall file an application for adjournment of the proceeding for a week, that shall be considered and allowed by learned District Judge by adjourning the case for a period of seven days.