AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioners/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 8412/1997 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, [CCH-9] are before this Court praying for quashing the common order dated 5.2.2010 passed on four applications filed in the above said suit at Annexure-L.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that DW-1 was examined on commission long back. Thereafter DW-2 was also examined. At the stage of arguments, Counsel for the LR of plaintiff filed two applications as per Annexures-C and D both under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall DW-1 and DW-2 for further cross-examination. Applications as per Annexures-G and J were also filed u/s 151 of CPC to recall the orders dated 28.7.2007 and 18.11.2009, and to re-open the case and permit the plaintiff to cross-examine DW-1 and DW-2. All the four applications were opposed by filing objections. The trial court has passed the impugned order without noticing that DW-1 was examined on commission and the evidence of DW-1 was completed on 16.7.2007. Under such circumstances, the trial court directing the defendant to produce DW-1 for further cross-examination is contrary to the records. Further, it is contended that there is no mention in the affidavit as to what questions require to be put to the witnesses. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioners cited two decisions reported in 1995(5) Kar.L.J. 273 [N.M. Viswanath v. B.V. Nanjundappa, by LRs and Anr.] and Vadiraj Naggapa Vernekar (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, .
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to why the plaintiff wanted to recall DW-1 and DW-2 and what questions they want to put were not disclosed in the affidavits holds no water, as if the questions are disclosed, the very purpose of cross-examination would be defeated. Cross-examination is an acid test of the truthfulness of the statements made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief. The objects of cross-examination are:
[1] To destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the witness of his adversary;
[2] to elicit facts in favour of the cross-examining lawyer''s client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party;
[3] to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness.
Further cross-examination is ordinarily unnecessary. But when the cross-examiner inadvertently omit to cross-examine on an important point, he may, with the leave of the court re-call that witness for re-cross-examination. Therefore the decision rendered in Viswanath''s case referred to supra is not applicable. In the decision reported in Vadiraj Naggapa Vernekar (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, , is not applicable to the case on hand as it was a case pertaining to recalling the witness for further examination and not for cross-examination. In the instant case the dispute is relating to Will. The trial court having applied its mind allowed all the four applications, of course, by imposing costs of Rs. 250/- per application. Further, when it was brought to the notice of the court that DW-1 was earlier examined on commission, the trial court has issued commission warrant for examination of DW-1 on commission. I see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.
In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed.