Jagwant Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And Another
!
! " #$ % & "
% '! ($ )$% & "
%
$ $* !
+$ #$ % & "
%
$
,,,,
!
-. /$ "
$ *
. &
. 0
2 + $ &3
*4 . 1 . 5 + ! % #$ % "
6$
$% $
.
11 $ * ..
6 /$ $ * . $ +
$ $ 1
$ 3
$ 7
.4 $ ..
+ 6
$ 38 8
+$ * " $ 1
3
7
.4 2 $" $ $ + 8 + $
+$ $
.
..4 9 : 1
.
$ . $
+ $ . .6 $ ..
+ 6
$ 38 8
+$ * " $ 1
* 3
7
.4% 8
$
;$% $ % $ 8 $ * 3
* .4%
+ <
* 84 * ..
6 - $
4% .
.
$
+ $ $
*.
6 $ 3
$ 7
"
.4 $
7
$
4
$ 8 .
2 $" + $
+$ $
..4 /$ . & . 1 . 5 + ! % #$ "
+ $ ..
6 $ ..
$ 38 ."
+ = I have considered the rival submissions. The power to recall a witness for further crossexamination is not a matter of right but a discretion vested in the Court to be exercised judiciously to meet the ends of justice. The paramount consideration is whether a sufficient and cogent reason has been shown for not putting the proposed question(s) during the original crossexamination. In the present case, the defendant asserts that the MCO and the plaintiff's signature thereon is a subsequent discovery. The authenticity of a consumer's consent on an MCO can be a decisive factor in a dispute concerning the meter and subsequent billing. The question the defendant seeks to put pertains to a document that is allegedly central to the defendant's version of events.
To deny an opportunity to confront the witness with a document that is claimed to be vital would be to shut out a potentially crucial line of defense, which would be contrary to the principles of a fair trial. The interest of justice demands that all relevant evidence be brought on record for a just decision. 6.
The objections regarding maintainability, delay and estoppel, while noted, are overruled in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The quest for truth and a complete adjudication of the real matter in controversy must prevail over technicalities. The plaintiff can be adequately compensated by imposing costs for the time spent and the delay caused"
:
.
$ $ .
$ +8
$ & 3 1
!"# !$%&% '
# "( # )* '
" #"+, *4 $ 1
! ! "
"
! # !"-. /0,&,& 1!# ( 2# !" !
$ .
!"% ./0)"
! 2# !" ! " 3 " 2# !"%./0% "! ' ! ./0+-W$% $ .
.
$
$ .
7 +8
> ?*. & 3 1
*"
> ?*. .$ > +$ 1
!* 2# !" 4 !" 4 .
!",. %%%
$ $ .
*4 $
- @222
. 0
11 6 $ +
6
$ 1
.. $ /$ 8 "The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit." 0
. 0
- @222
11 . 6 $ $
6
$ 1
% 6$ 1
<
4 3 . 8 4 6
".4 7
$ 8 $ > ?*. & 3 1
$ +
..4 .
6
"
$ $
6
11
*4 $ 3
6
$ 1
- @222
. 0
11 /$ ."
+8
=This inherent power of the Court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the Court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the Court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties by recalling any witness so that the court itself can put question and elicit answers.
Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. However, this power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. Order 18 Rule 17 is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examinationinchief or crossexamination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded."
A < .4% "
6
+
$ & 3 1
% 8
$ +
- @222
. 0
11 .
*4 $
$*. > ?*. & 3 1
$ 88 B $
6
$ 1
11
"The scope of Section 151 has been explained by this Court in several decisions which can be summarised as follows: (a) ! is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is `right' and undo what is `wrong', that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.
(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, recognizes and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is coextensive
with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances.
(c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of ! of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code. (d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in ! of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the Legislature.
(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief.
(f) The power under will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.
'
6%
6 $ * 3
*4 $
.4 % $
"4 $ * C
8
C $
.
. + $
'
90
A *4 $
C % 6$*4% 8
%9C $ * .
$
%C
..+ $
+4 .
.
.
$
..+.% .. "
% $
< . .
7 + 8
" $ 8
$ *
C
$
*4 + "
. 6 . $ " 8
6 8 " $
$ 8 6 D :*
. + .. $
8.
.
$ )
% $ ) 6
$ .4
8 $ *
2 6
$
$
$ . $
.. $
.4
.
4 *4
% !
$ 8 6 .
.
+ 9
D.
4 & 6
88 .
6 6$ $
6
3
"
%
6
.
..
+ $
$ 38 8 8 . < + + $ +
1-
$ 8 $+
/$
6 8 " *4
+ $ $ 8
$ ) 6. +
$ $
$
+
8 $+
1-
$ 38 6
. $.
+ $ /$
6
*4 $ % 6$ % 6 ..+ $
$"
+ *
. *. + 8 *. $ $ 8 $ *
. 6 $ mala fide
.. .
$
$ . 4 * 38 .+$ $ 8 .% 6$
$ 6 <
% 6 . 4 $ ) 6. +
$
C 1
$ + + 8 $ ..
6 $
"
+
'
6% $ *
< <
*
$ 6 $ +
$ 8
*4 $
C *
" $ 8% $ 8 ".
8
C
$ 6 $ $
C
<
"
$
C 6
+
1-
'
*% 1-
8
$
C * 8 $ $4 6 $ ) 6. +
1- $ + 6$
6 * 38 %
C 6 +.
+
+ $ 8
+ $ 38 *
+ $ $ 8 .% 6$
$ <
. * $.
+ 7
/$ % $ 3
$
6 *4 $ 1
11 * $. * * .4 3
/$ $ * 3
*4 $ 1
*.
6 7
.4 $ *
+
"
%
$% $
8 4 ..+.
4
8 4%
+ 8 $ "
$ 8 8 !
$ 8 8 % +
%
4 .
+.4
#
! $ %
! Whether reasoned / speaking?
Yes / No Whether reportable?
Yes / No