Delhi High Court
Shri Gian Chand Udar vs Shri Jawahar Singh And Ors. on 17 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.367/2014 and C.M.No.6784/2014 (stay)
% 17th October , 2014
SHRI GIAN CHAND UDAR ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Anandita, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHRI JAWAHAR SINGH AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order of the Land Acquisition Cases (LAC) court dated
20.3.2014 by which two applications filed by the respondent no.1/IP no.1
have been allowed. The first application which has been allowed is recalling
of the petitioner/IP no.6 Sh. Gian Chand Udar for cross-examination, and
who has been recalled for cross-examination so as to put up certain official
documents. Second application which has been allowed is an application to
take on record certified copies of certain judicial proceedings. The main
CMM 367/2014 Page 1 of 3
proceedings in the LAC court are proceedings under Sections 30/31 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for division of compensation.
2. So far as the second application to take on record certified
copies of judicial proceedings is concerned, I do not find that the trial court
has committed any error because Supreme Court in the judgment in the case
of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors.
(1994) 4 SCC 659 has held that even at the stage of final arguments,
unimpeachable documents being certified copies can always be taken on
record. Therefore, the LAC court has committed no illegality in allowing
the application for taking on record certified copies of the judicial record
filed by the respondent no.1/IP no.1.
3. So far as the second application is concerned for recalling
petitioner/IP no.6 for cross-examination is concerned, no doubt after cross-
examination of a person is complete, ordinarily such a person should not be
recalled for cross-examination and as so held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs.
Gupta Building Material Store 2013 (1) Rajdhani Law Reporter 373,
however, this judgment of the Supreme Court also states that the issue of
recall has to be looked into as per the facts of each case and there is no
CMM 367/2014 Page 2 of 3
general bar that a person cannot be recalled for cross-examination. In the
present case, I note that the purpose of recalling IP no.6/Sh. Gian Chand
Udar/petitioner is so that certain complaints which have been made to the
police can be put for his cross-examination. Therefore, I do not find any
serious or very grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner/IP no.6 if he
comes into the witness box and answers questions with respect to complaints
which were made by the respondent no.1/IP no.1 to the police.
4. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are meant
to be invoked and exercised only if there is grave injustice or grave
infraction of law. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be invoked where certain discretionary jurisdiction is exercised by
the trial court during the course of trial. Also, Article 227 cannot be invoked
in facts such as the present case because I fail to understand what will be the
prejudice to the petitioner if he comes to the witness box and answers
questions pertaining to official record. Also, it is not as if petitioner/IP no.6
is living outside Delhi and he would have difficulty to come to the court.
5. Dismissed.
OCTOBER 17, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
