The question that has been raised is about the power of the Commissioner to declare a witness hostile. Order XVIII Rule 4(4) requires that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before the Commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the stage of arguments. Order XVIII Rule 4(8) stipulates that the provisions of Rules 16, 16-A, 17 and 18 of Order XXVI, in so far as they are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission thereunder. The discretion to declare a witness hostile has not been conferred on the Commissioner. Under section 154 of the Evidence Act, it is the Court which has to grant permission, in its discretion, to a person who calls a witness, to put any question to that witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. The powers delegated to the Commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 16, 16-A, 17 and 18 do not include the discretion that is vested in Court under section 154 of the Evidence Act to declare a witness hostile.
12. If a situation as to declaring a witness hostile arises before a Commission recording evidence, the concerned party shall have to obtain permission from the Court under section 154 of the Evidence Act and it is only after grant of such permission that the Commissioner can allow a party to cross-examine his own witness. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Court may either grant such permission or even consider to withdraw the commission so as to itself record remaining evidence or impose heavy costs if it finds that permission was sought to delay the progress of the suit or harass the opposite party.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 496 and 570 of 2002
Decided On: 02.08.2005
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu
Vs.
Union of India (UOI)
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Citation: AIR 2005 SC 3353.
In the light of the above discussion, the Court below committed serious error in law, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellants, which must be corrected. In that view of the matter, the question framed by me above, is answered in the affirmative. 10. To sum up, following order is inevitable.: ORDER a) Second Appeal No.18/2016 is allowed. b) Impugned judgment and decree dated 2.9.2015 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. Nagpur in R.C.S. No.376/2015 and judgment and decree dated 31.10.2015 passed by District Judge8, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.448/2015, both are set aside. c) There shall be a decree in terms of prayer clause (2) of the suit which is reproduced below : (2) Declare that the defendant Shri Abhay s/o Purushottam Deshmukh as a dead person and his death is civil death as he is missing from 16.3.2008 and issue death certificate.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEN...
Comments
Post a Comment