Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2297 (JHR)

Shiv Shankar Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is plaintiff no. 1 in Title Suit No. 53 of 2004, is aggrieved of order dated 28.09.2015 by which on the application of defendant no. 4 plaintiff''s witnesses-P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been recalled for their further cross-examination. 2. Stand taken by the plaintiff is that the defendant no.4 is a proforma-defendant and therefore at his instance the plaintiff''s witnesses who were cross-examined and discharged cannot be recalled for their further cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Government Pleader has appeared and cross-examined the plaintiff''s witnesses, no further cross-examination of the plaintiff''s witnesses through the defendant-Headmaster of the school can be permitted. 4. Title Suit No. 53 of 2004 has been instituted by the petitioner and four others for a decree for declaration of their occupancy raiyati rights over the suit schedule properties and for a declaration that order dated 02.08.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 127 of 2003-04 is illegal, without jurisdiction and that shall not confer any right, title and interest over the defendants. In the suit, the Headmaster of the school and one Kashinath Dubey have been made defendants in their individual capacity. It is pleaded that the Headmaster as well as the said Kashinath Dubey had engaged their private lawyers to contest the suit. It is not in dispute that during pendency of the suit the Headmaster of the school retired and in his place a new incumbent took charge and the defendant no. 5-Kashinath Dubey died. Now at this stage, the new Headmaster of the school comes into picture and files an application for recall of the plaintiff''s witnesses. The trial Judge has held that further cross-examination of the plaintiff''s witnesses, who were previously not cross-examined by the defendant nos. 4 and 5, may bring out new facts. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the trial Judge has not committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction and the impugned order dated 28.09.2015 does not warrant any interference of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.