Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dinesh Kumar vs Vipan Kumar And Others on 19 June, 2017

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

                                                  CMPMO No. 151 of 2017





                                                  Decided on:   19.06.2017





    Dinesh Kumar                                                  ...Petitioner.

                                      Versus





    Vipan Kumar and others                                        ...Respondents.



    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner:      Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.   Arvind   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondent No. 3.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. (Oral) By   way   of   this   petition,   the   petitioner   has challenged order,  dated 3rd  February,  2017,  passed by  the learned   Civil   Judge   (Junior   Division),   Barsar,   District Hamirpur   (H.P.)   in   Civil   Suit   No.   82   of   2012,   titled   as Dinesh Kumar versus Vipan Kumar and others, vide which ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP 2 the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the   present   petitioner   under   Section   138   of   the   Indian .

Evidence   Act,   whereby   the   petitioner   had   prayed   for re­examination   of   PW­1,   namely   Shri   Chander   Kant,   and PW­4, namely Shri Ram Dayal.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. A   perusal   of   the   record   appended   with   the petition   demonstrates   that   the   application   under   Section 138   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act   was   filed   by   the   present petitioner on 20th April, 2016.  Further perusal of the record demonstrates   that   the   statement   of   PW­1,   Shri   Chander Kant, was recorded before the learned Trial Court on 14 th January, 2015, whereas the statement of PW­4, Shri Ram Dayal,   was   recorded   on   13th  May,   2015.     Their   cross­ examinations   were   also   conducted   on  the   same   dates   and apparently, no request was made for the re­examination of these witnesses on the said dates.

4. As   I   have   already   mentioned   above,   the application under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act for ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP 3 re­examination   of   these   two   witnesses   was   filed   on   20 th February, 2016.   A perusal of the averments made therein .

demonstrates   that   the   reason   as   to   why   their   re­ examination has been sought by the petitioner was that as the said witnesses, in the course of their cross­examination, had   admitted   the   fact   that   no   payment   pertaining   to   the agreement   in   issue   was   made   in   their   presence,   it   was necessary   to   explain   the   facts   qua   the   payment   of consideration amount and to clear and clarify the ambiguity.

There is no explanation given in the application as to why these   witnesses   were   not   re­examined   on   the   respective dates   of   their   examination   itself   and   further   why   the application was filed at such a belated stage.

5. Be   that   as   it   may,   Section   138   of   the   Indian Evidence Act contemplates that the witnesses shall be first examined­in­chief,   then,   if   the   adverse   party   so   desires, cross­examined and then, if the party calling him so desires, re­examined.     It   is   obvious   that   re­examination   has   to   be ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP 4 directed towards the explanation of those matters, which are referred to in cross­examination.

.

6. Now, a perusal of the cross­examination of these two witnesses demonstrates that they have stated that no consideration amount was paid in their presence.   Records further   demonstrate   that   the   learned   counsel   for   the plaintiff, i.e. the present petitioner, was present at the time when both these witnesses were examined and no request was made for the re­examination of the said witnesses.   In these circumstances, filing of an application under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act with the prayer that PW­1 and PW­4 be permitted to be re­examined, is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and an attempt not only to delay the matter, but also probably to fill up the lacunae.

7. In my considered view, the intent and content of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act is not for the said purpose.   This provision cannot be allowed to be used by a party either to prolong the matter or to fill up the lacunae in its case.  The right of re­examination conferred upon a party ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP 5 has to be exercised after the cross­examination of a witness takes place and it is not as if after a slumber, once a party .

realizes   that   a   witness   has   probably   not   deposed   what   it wanted   the   witness   to   depose,   that   it   can   move   an application   under   Section   138   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act calling upon the Court to allow it to re­examine the witness in order to fill up the lacunae.

8. to Therefore,   in   view   of   the   above   discussion,   as there is neither any merit in the present petition nor, in my considered view, there is any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous   applications,   if   any,   are   also   disposed   of accordingly.  No order as to costs.

     (Ajay Mohan Goel)                 Judge June 19, 2017              ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 21/06/2017 23:59:02 :::HCHP