AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr.M.Hari Babu, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. The first respondent who is the legal representative of respondent No.2 is neither present nor is she represented by counsel, though notice was served through Mr.P.Suresh Babu, her counsel in the District Forum.
THE petitioner is the opposite party in C.C.No.12/2009 on the file of District Forum -I, Krishna at Machilipatnam. He has assailed the order dated 27 -10 -2014 in I.A.No.11/2014 where under the District Forum has permitted the complainant to recall R.W.1 for cross -examination.
THE respondent No.2 (since died) filed the complaint stating that gold was entrusted to the petitioner herein for making ornaments, but the petitioner herein did not make the ornaments nor the gold was returned. Therefore the first respondent approached the District Forum complaining that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner herein. The claim was resisted by the opposite party stating that the ornaments were already delivered and there is no deficiency of service.
BOTH the parties chose to adduce oral evidence in addition to the documentary evidence. The petitioner got examined one witness as R.W.2 on his behalf and on his own behalf, he filed his examination -in -chief through affidavit. It appears that at that stage, the complainant did not choose to cross -examine the petitioner. Subsequently thereto, evidence was closed on behalf of both the parties. However, the matter was re -opened at the instance of the complainant for the purpose of cross -examining the petitioner. It is in that connection, the complainant filed the I.A. in question and the District Forum ordered the said application and permitted the complainant to recall the petitioner for cross -examination.
SRI M.Hari Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there is no justification to recall the witness after a lapse of more than 4 years. The complainant did not choose to cross -examine the petitioner immediately after his evidence -in -chief was filed, therefore, he is not entitled to seek the same relief after closure of evidence on both sides.
IT is true that there is considerable delay on the part of the complainant in seeking to cross -examine the petitioner, but at the same time, it could be seen that it is a case where both the parties have chosen to lead not only documentary evidence but also oral evidence. The opposite party got himself examined as R.W.1 and he also cross examined the respondent. It would, therefore, be proper that he be put to cross -examination in order to put his chief examination to test. In such circumstances, the delay to cross -examine him itself is not a ground to deny the respondent the opportunity of cross examination. The petitioner has not even pleaded that he would be put to any prejudice if he is subjected to cross -examination. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be found fault with.
THE revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.