Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1186 (AP)

T. Haribhushana v. T. Venkat Rao

2003-09-17

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2003
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS application for transfer of O. S. No. 182 of 1984 on the file of the court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad, to any other Court is filed by defendants 1 and 7 in that suit on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer, without considering the request of their counsel for adjournment to the next day for completion of the cross-examination of PW2 had forfeited their right to further cross-examination PW2 and so they have some apprehensions. ( 2 ) I have gone through the order dated 22-8-2003 whereunder the learned Judge forfeited the right of the petitioners to further cross-examine PW2 on the ground that their counsel into the Court hall only at about 4. 45 p. m. and cross-examined the witness for some time and then sought for adjournment. ( 3 ) SINCE the counsel for the petitioners in the trial Court went into the Court hall about 15 minutes before the close of the working hours of the Court when an important witness is to be cross-examined by him, the trial Court treating the same as a delaying tactic, ordering forfeiture qf the right to further cross-examine a witness cannot be taken as an order passed due to prejudice, for the affected party to have some apprehensions. When a case is posted for trial, the Counsel has a duty to be present in the court at 10. 30 p. m. , and if he wants accommodation, he has to make a request to the Court for that purpose. A Counsel who goes into the Court hall at the fag end of the day, fully knowing that he has to cross-examine an important witness of the opposite party should not feel aggrieved by the refusal of the Court to grant an adjournment when adjournment is sought on the ground of close of working hours of the Court. When the Counsel knew that he requires more than 15 minutes time for cross-examination of the witness he should have been present in Court long before 4. 45 p. m. and completed the cross-examination of the witness. If he wanted an adjournment he should have made such request at the time of call work. When the Counsel knew that he requires more than 15 minutes time for cross-examination of the witness he should have been present in Court long before 4. 45 p. m. and completed the cross-examination of the witness. If he wanted an adjournment he should have made such request at the time of call work. ( 4 ) SINCE the suit is for partition, involving valuable rights of the parties, by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a petition for recalling PW2 for further cross-examination, I dismiss this petition. Needless to mention that if and when the petitioners file a petition to recall PW2, the learned Judge should consider the same on merits, without being influence by the observations in this order and the events that took place earlier on 22-8-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the trial Court should keep in view the fact that he owes a duty to the Court by being present when the case is taken up for trial. ( 5 ) THE petition is ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.