Kamlesh Chaturvedi vs Nathuram Chaturvedi
2021 Latest Caselaw 8005 MP

                                  1                              MP-2208-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MP No. 2208 of 2019
            (KAMLESH CHATURVEDI Vs NATHURAM CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS)


Gwalior, Dated : 30-11-2021
      Shri Kamlesh Chaturvedi, Petitioner present in person.

      Shri Rajiv Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

This petition has been filed against the order dt.09.04.2019 passed by 14th Civil Judge, Class-I in Case No.94A/2012, whereby cross examination of defendant witness, namely; Ashok Chaturvedi has been closed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available on record.

The petitioner in person- Shri Kamlesh Chaturvedi has contended that certain documents were filed by the defendant alongwith his application for summoning the witness, namely; Ashok Chaturvedi. He requested the trial Court to allow him to get exhibited the same by the witness but the trial Court rejected his prayer and directed him to conclude the cross examination. The petitioner being plaintiff has got the valuable right to cross examine the witness of the defendant. It is exclusively in his domain as to how the cross

examination is to be conducted. The trial Court cannot direct him to cross examine the witness in a particular manner. The trial Court has arbitrarily closed the cross-examination of the defendant witness and the plaintiff has been deprived of his valuable right. The impugned order deserves to be set aside and the plaintiff should be given further opportunity to cross examine the defendant witness. Petitioner/plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Fatehchand Vs. Shrichand as reported in 1994 (II) M.P.W.N. [45] and in the case of Mohd. Ahsanali Vs. Sudama Prasad as reported in 1996 (I) M.P.W.N. [175].

Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the witness in question is an attesting witness to the Will. Plaintiff conducted his cross examination on 06.04.2018, 04.05.2018, 09.05.2018, 24.07.2018, 14.11.2018 and 09.04.2019. The cross examination runs from para No.5 to para No.36 in 2 MP-2208-2019 14 typed pages. Thus, the witness has already misused his liberty to cross examine the witness. When the witness declined to come forward for evidence, the defendant had to file an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC. to call him through Court and in support of this application, some documents were filed, which had no relevance to the

dispute involved in the suit. Learned trial Court has rightly disallowed the plaintiff to get such documents exhibited by this witness. The suit is pending since 2012. This petition has been filed only to further delay the proceedings, which deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard leaned counsel for both the sides and on perusal of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the right to cross examine the witness is certainly a valuable right but no party can be allowed to misuse the liberty or to abuse the process of law or to harass the witness in the name of cross examination. The Court is duty bound to protect the witness from such undue harassment in the name of cross- examination. The law has given ample power to the Court for this purpose.

In this case admittedly the witness in question is an attesting witness of the Will. The plaintiff could have put only relevant questions with regard to attestation of the Will. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiff has conducted cross-examination of the above witness on different dates i.e. 06.04.2018, 04.05.2018, 09.05.2018, 24.07.2018, 14.11.2018 and 09.04.2019. The witness had to appear before the Court for cross-examination throughout the span of one year on different dates. The cross examination of the said witness runs from para No.5 to para No.36 in 14 typed pages. This clearly shows that not only the plaintiff has misused his liberty to cross examine the witness but learned trial Court has also granted extraordinary indulgence to the plaintiff. The documents filed by the defendant alongwith the application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC for summoning him through Court cannot be said to be relevant in any manner as the same were filed only to show unwillingness of the witness to come forward for the evidence. Thus, these 3 MP-2208-2019 documents were not related to the lis at all.

In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. As a result, the petition is dismissed.

The matter has already been in-ordinarily delayed, therefore, trial Court is expected to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit by day to day hearing.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

shanu* Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2021.12.03 11:02:49 -08'00'