Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 772 (JHR)

Raj Narayan Pandey v. Kameshwar Thakur

2008-07-22

M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.10.2007 passed by Subordinate Judge-III, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 83 of 2000 whereby he has rejected the prayer of the defendant/petitioner for recalling the plaintiff (P.W. 1) for further cross-examination. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed aforementioned suit for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises after evicting defendant-petitioner there from. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. 3. In course of argument, the defendant-petitioner filed a petition along with certified copy of deposition of the plaintiff recorded in the criminal case being G.R. Case No. 280/2000 stating inter alia that the plaintiff has admitted certain facts which are relevant for determining the issue involved in the suit. Petitioner. therefore, filed a petition for recalling the plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 1 for the purpose of contradiction of his earlier admission made in the said case. The said prayer was opposed by the plaintiff and the Court below by the impugned order rejected the application holding that the suit is at the argument stage and, therefore, further cross-examination of the plaintiff cannot be allowed as he has already been cross-examined at length. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the suit for eviction is pending since 2000 and after closure of the evidence; the case was fixed for argument. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 in March 2003 i.e. more than two years back. In my view, therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for recalling P.W. 1 for further cross-examination in order to contradict him with his previous deposition given in the criminal case. Moreover, it is well settled that if the party is the author of prior statement of a party, there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party for contradiction before admitting the said statement into evidence. 6. In the instant case, defendant petitioner wanted the statement made by the plaintiff in the earlier criminal case to be contradicted for the purpose of using it, which. in my opinion, is not necessary. 6. In the instant case, defendant petitioner wanted the statement made by the plaintiff in the earlier criminal case to be contradicted for the purpose of using it, which. in my opinion, is not necessary. The relevancy of the statement said to have been made by the plaintiff in the earlier case is to be considered by the Court below while passing judgment in the suit. 7. For the reasons aforesaid this writ petition stands disposed of With the aforesaid observation.