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

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 other person
any information o…
Read more

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

A close perusal of Section 28 would show that though as per this
Section the proceedings under Sec.12, 18 to 23 and offences under Sec. 31 are
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that is not an inscrutable
rule inasmuch as Sec.28(1) is having a saving clause and also subject to sub-
section(2).  
When we analyse the limitations of Section 28(1) with reference
to the civil nature of the remedies provided under Sec.18 to 22 and saving
provisions under Sec.13 and 23, we can understand that for conducting
enquiry, the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for
each adjournment like in criminal cases.  
It is because, Sec.13 lays down that
the Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12 to
the Protection Officer for serving on the respondent. So for securing the
appearance of respondent, at the first instance, the Magistrate need not, nay
shall not issue warrant. 
Even if the respondents failed to turn up after
receiving notice and file the…
Read more

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

the power of the revenue Court in deciding the disputed questions
of fact.

The application before the Mandal Revenue Officer
was filed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land
and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971).

Thereupon in accordance with the provision contained in the A.P.
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, the Mandal
Revenue Officer conducted enquiry and after giving due
opportunity to the objectors and on detailed consideration of the
revenue records, passed orders on 15.03.1991.
The objection as
to maintainability of such application and the competency of the
Mandal Revenue Officer to decide the disputed questions of fact
with reference to the succession was considered and specifically
rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer.
 In support of his
decision, the Mandal Revenue Officer placed reliance on the
provision contained in Rule 9(1)(a)(i) read with Rule 9(1)(c)(i) of
the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rule…
Read more