Rajasthan HC Orders Cyber Safety Reforms, Covering Influencer Rules and Aadhaar-Linked Digital IDs  ||  Bombay HC: SEBI Exercised Due Care and Caution in Approving the Wework India IPO Proposal  ||  Delhi HC: FEMA Summons Follow CPC, Not CrPC; ED May Call Women to Office For Statement Recording  ||  Kerala HC: Further Probe under Section 173(8) CrPC Allowed Only by Original Investigating Agency  ||  Delhi HC: Parties Must First Ask Social Media Platforms to Remove Content Before Seeking Injunction  ||  Supreme Court: Prosecutor Cannot Neglect Duty to Court in Pursuit of Securing Conviction  ||  Supreme Court: Selection Criteria Cannot be Altered After Interviews are Conducted  ||  NCLT Mumbai: Pending Cheque-Bounce Case Does not Prevent Admission of Insolvency Petition  ||  Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved