Recall of Witnesses for Cross Examination – Old suit for Partition – Despite of giving one or two opportunities – petitioner not cooperated and conducted cross examination - Aliment of petitioner and his family members is not the sufficient cause for recalling the witnesses - as the Cross Examination can be done by his counsel by taking proper instructions from the petitioner – Trial court dismissed the same – High court confirmed the same and dismissed the revision - 2015-Telangana & A.P.-MSKLAWREPORTS


Seeking recall of PWs.1 to 3 for cross-examination on his behalf – suit for partition - PW.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 06.02.2013 and thereafter, the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 15.02.2013 and 21.02.2013 and again, it was adjourned to 01.03.2013 and 08.03.2013. -  The petitioner herein, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, has failed to cross-examine PW.1.  - In the meantime, PWs.2 and 3 have filed their chief affidavits and they were cross-examined by defendant No.4.  - Now at this stage, recall petition of PWs.1 to 3 is filed.            - Reasons furnished that the petitioner is nearly 70 year old man having certain health problems and his wife and son were challenged persons and he has to take good care of them. - All these factors cumulatively, came in the way of the petitioner herein in cross-examining PWs.1 to 3.  - This explanation has not found favour of the trial Court, as no specific ailment has been set out and further, no material is produced in proof of any such disposition.  - Therefore, the trial Court has rejected the interlocutory application.- Their Lordships held that      It is important to notice that if one is not in a physically sound position to attend to the hearing of the case, he is supposed to instruct his counsel thoroughly so that cross-examination can be carried out by the counsel.  -The presence of a party in a Court hall would only be required for securing any clarification at the last minute.  Therefore, I am convinced that the petitioner herein in spite of being provided with adequate opportunities has not availed the same to cross-examine PWs.1 to 3 and hence, there is no meaning in recalling those witness at this point of time, particularly, when the suit is very old one instituted in the year 2007 and it is almost 8 years since it was instituted and it is required to be disposed of on priority basis. –  
2015-Telangana & A.P. - MSKLAWREPORTS
Non-Cross Examination of witness in Partition suit – Effects - This apart, in a suit for partition, the defendants stand on the same footing as that of the plaintiff, therefore, the petitioner herein is entitled to lead such evidence as he has considered appropriate on his behalf.  However, the Court would show appropriate consideration in that respect, without putting any undue burden on the petitioner herein for his failure to cross-examine PWs.1 to 3.  Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed.-

 2015-Telangana & A.P.-MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more