All. HC: Arbitrator’s Requirement to Provide Reason Hinges on Pleadings & Available Docs. on Record  ||  Supreme Court: No Provision Under GST Act for Pre-payment Prior to Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Cannot Set Aside Conviction Only on the Ground that Witness Turned Hostile  ||  SC: Can Use Witness Statement Recorded In Absence of Accused, if Conditions of S. 299 CrPC Fulfilled  ||  Del. HC: Administration has Turned Blind Eye Towards Functioning of Dairies in National Capital  ||  Delhi High Court: Ramping Up of Food Sampling & Testing Required in National Capital  ||  Bom. HC: Ensure Availability of Essential Infrastructure to Implement e-Mulakaat System in Prisons  ||  Supreme Court: Concept of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' Discussed in Child Custody Dispute  ||  Allahabad HC: Person Reposing Faith in Islam Cannot Claim Right in Nature of Live-in-Relationship  ||  Bom. HC: Renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar And Dharashiv Upheld    

Pushpa Devi and Ors. Vs. Pawan Sehrawat and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:1950) - (High Court of Delhi) (11 Mar 2024)

Inherent power under Section 151 of CPC, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re-open the evidence or to recall witness for further examination

MANU/DE/1855/2024

Civil

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by Respondent no. 1 and 2 herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") for seeking permission to lead defence, evidence and recalling of order dated 23rd November, 2022.

It is clear from the impugned order that, Respondent no. 1 and 2 have acted irresponsibly and even with negligence. The conduct of Respondent no. 1 and 2 certainly has invited criticism, yet the learned Trial Court exercised its discretion in favour of Respondent no. 1 & 2 by granting them a single opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to cost. It is also true, when Respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to lead evidence in defence, a right has accrued in favour of the Petitioners which is disturbed by opening the evidence of the Respondent no. 1 & 2.

The inherent power under Section 151 of CPC, subject to its limitations can be invoked in appropriate cases to re-open the evidence or to recall witness for further examination. The power under Section 151 of CPC will have to be used with circumspection and in cases, only where it is absolutely needed and not intended to be used routinely, otherwise it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments made to CPC to expedite trials.

In the present case, the plea of the Respondent no. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court for not-examining their witnesses on two occasions was that the son of Respondent no.1, who was following the trial of the case was undergoing depression therefore he could not be vigilant with respect to the proceedings of the case. In view of circumstance, the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion by permitting Respondent no. 1 and 2 to avail one opportunity for leading their evidence. Petition dismissed.

Tags :   RECALL ORDER  PERMISSION  GRANT

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved