Gujarat High Court
Surya vs Gujarat on 17 October, 2011
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15446/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15446 of 2011
=========================================================
SURYA
PHARMACEUTICLES LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
ALKALIS AND CHEMOICALS & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPEN C SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 17/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and to quash judgment and order below exh 73 passed on 8/4/2011 in Special Civil Suit No. 682/2003 pending in the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara filed under section 151 read with section 29 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
According to petitioner, the respondent original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 682/2003 for recovery of out standing amount for the goods sold and delivered to petitioner defendant. The respondent plaintiff submitted examination in chief affidavit of one Mr. Subodh Pathak. The witness in his cross examination, admitted that he had no authority to present the suit on behalf of plaintiff and was not authorized to appear for the plaintiff company. Therefore, the petitioner preferred application exh 73 and prayed to discard evidence of said Mr. Pathak contending that the few questions in the cross examination had confirmed that there is deficiency and lack of requisite authority and legitimate competence with the witness to represent the plaintiff Company. Therefore, the examination in chief filed by witness at exh 31 is required to be discarded. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, learned Trial Judge by impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said decision, present petition has been preferred.
I have heard learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner.
When the quarry was put to learned advocate Mr. Shah that under which provision, the application was moved before Trial Judge, he was not able to reply. He could not point out that under which law evidence of witness can be discarded before its proper appreciation. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the petitioner states that the cross examination of the said witness is still under progress. In view of this, learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application for relief to discard his evidence. It is only at appropriate stage of the proceeding that the Court would decide whether the witness can be believed or not? Even before completion of recording of cross examination, Court can not discard the evidence of any witness.
In view of the above, I find no merits in the petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA, J) asma Top