Orissa High Court
Shriram General Insurance vs Renuka Haldar And Others ....... Opp. ... on 30 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19598 of 2019
Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Renuka Haldar and others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. A.A. Khan,
Advocate
For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4 : None
For Opp. Party Nos.5 : Ms. S. Pratihari,
Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 30.11.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner-Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the
Court below) challenging the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in
MAC Case No.101 of 2014, vide which its prayer to recall the
prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination was rejected
based on a memo filed by the learned Counsel for the Claimants
(present Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4) to the effect, he is unable to
produce the said witnesses for their cross-examination.
2. The case of the Petitioner-Insurance Company is that,
being noticed by the Court below, it could not appear in time
and could not be able to file its Written Statement on the date
fixed. Hence, it was set ex-parte and the Claimants (present
Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4) lead their evidence and documents
were marked as Exts.1 to 9. Knowing about the said ex-parte
order, the Petitioner-Insurance Company appeared and filed an
application for setting aside the ex-parte order under Order-9,
Rule 7 of C.P.C. After the said Petition was allowed on 23.4.2018
by the Court below, cost being paid in terms of the said order,
its Written Statement was accepted and taken into record. There
after it came to its notice that during the said period, the
Claimants (present Opposite Party No.1 to 4) have already
examined two witnesses. Knowing about the same, the
Petitioner-Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the
Court below) filed an application to recall all the prosecution
witnesses at its cost.
3. In reply, learned Counsel for the Claimants (present
Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4) opposed the said prayer made in the
petition filed by the Insurance Company by filing a memo stating
therein that he is unable to produce the witnesses for cross-
examination. The Court below, without applying judicious mind,
W.P.(C) No.19598 of 2019 Page 2 of 5
mechanically accepted the said memo, thereby debarred the
present Petitioner-Insurance Company to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses, even though with all fairness, it was
indicated in the prayer of the said petition that the said
witnesses be recalled for their cross-examinations at the cost of
the present Petitioner-Insurance Company.
4. Though notices were duly served on the Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4, they go unrepresented. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No-5.
5. Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses were examined
before appearance of the present Petitioner-Insurance Company
(Opposite Party No.2 before the Court below) and the documents
were marked as Exts.1 to 9. Thereafter the petition of the
Petitioner-Insurance Company was allowed recalling the ex-
parte order and it was allowed to file its Written Statement
subject to payment of cost.
6. In view of the above admitted facts on record, this Court
is of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the
petition of the present Petitioner-Insurance Company giving it
opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
However without assigning any cogent reason, the Court below
W.P.(C) No.19598 of 2019 Page 3 of 5
has mechanically rejected the said petition for recalling the
prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the
3rd M.A.C.T., Dhenkanal in MAC Case No.101 of 2014 is set
aside and the Court below is directed to ensure presence of the
said prosecution witnesses at the cost of the Petitioner-
Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.2 before the Court
below) for their cross-examinations and proceed further in
accordance with law. It is made clear, if the claimants fail to
produce the said witnesses for their cross examination, the
evidences of the said PWs shall stand expunged.
8. A query being made by the Court, Mr. Khan, learned
Counsel for the Petitioner-Insurance Company submits, MAC
Case No.101 of 2014 stands posted to 4th December, 2023 for
hearing.
9. In view of the above, the Petitioner and Opposite Party
No.5 are directed to appear before the Court below on 4th
December, 2023 and produce this order enabling the Court
below to act in terms of the direction given above and proceed
further in accordance with law. Since the claim application is of
the year 2014, the court below shall do well to dispose of MAC
W.P.(C) No.19598 of 2019 Page 4 of 5
Case No.101 of 2014 at the earliest, preferably within a period of
six months from 4th December, 2023.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application. Apart from the same, to avoid delay, parties are at
liberty to act upon the digitally signed copy of this order
available in the Website of this Court.
...................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 30th November, 2023 /Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 02-Dec-2023 11:03:04
