(ttyy^§ £..i£c^7.^^ 'i^'^w'^W ^; %^ ^'L^^^ ^ i A^-1^57^' BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7 3>3 /2010 PETITIONER Plaintiff Babulal Soni, S/o Banshilal Soni, aged about 58 years, R/o G.E. Road, Soni S^mill Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Defendants //1 ,.-^ex^ ^&^' l....-"v5?t-^^-' ^r <*••": L<A^\?< ^•^s^}~f' !^. Punai Bai, D/o Bhagoli Satnami, aged about not known, R/o Kaurinbhatha, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Rajnandgan (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'Me Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetitionlCt No.733/2010 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Versus Babulal Soni Purai Bai and another. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petrtioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawat, P.L. for the State. WRTT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTmjnON OF INCTA ' ' ...',...';'TI;T" ORALORDER (24.02.2010) Ptaintiff in the trial Court has visited this Court jnvoking jurisdtetion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to as^ulapart of the depositton of defendant No.1 witness Punai Bai, wh® ^as^ examined as DW-1 in the trial Court. In the said part of deposition the teamed trial Court, on a prayer made by the defendants counsel, has allowed him to re-examine the wftness on a partteular point. ^ (2) It happenecl thus, that the said wftness admitted her signature in Ex.P-9 upon whte^ the counsel for the defendant sought permission of the Court that the witness has not been able to appreciate and understand the question as she is a villager, therefore, permission lor her re-exam'inatlon shoutel be atlowed. The Court, thereafter for veriftoation of the fack put some question to the witness and having m^:w^^^ consklered the genuiness of the prayer has allowed him to re-e>^mmew Flhe witness. m-r: ^ -^' (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that such pennissjon for re-examinatton is not contemplated under Order 18 Rute 17 of C.P.C. or any other provisk>ns of taw, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-asicte. Leamed counsel for the pet'rtioner relies on AIR 2004 Punjab & Haryana 379 Harjit Singh Vs. Manjit Kaur and others and AIR 2003 Bombay 283 Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty Vs. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta and others. (4) tn AIR 2003 Bombay 293 the Bombay H^h Court has held that provisions of order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. do rwt empower Court to recall witness for purpose of cross examination and that tt only permfts recall of witness for exainination by Court and further that Court^jfl a given case can invoke inherent powers to recatl wftness for cross examination. In 2004 Punjab & Haryana 379 the Punjab & Haryana High Court has helct that proviskins contend in order 18 Rule W of C.P.C. does not permit party to re-examine the wftness. (5) S have~heard leamed counsel for the petitioner at length. TNs Gourt is not impressedlthe argument advanced by learned c©unselfor k- • " • •' •• • .: •:;-:----::i.:.;---i^^ the petitioner for the simple reason that the teamed trial Court has not referred to the provisions contained under Order 18 Rute 17 of C.P.C. to grant permission to re-examine the witness. It appears that the teamed triat Court has granted such permission in its inherent powers. The teamed trial Gourt, before whom the witness is examined, i& in ® better position to appreciate tte obkaining circumstances for^xercise of its cliscretion so as to afford opportunity to the parties to prove jts case in the best possibte manner. In the opinion of this Court the trial Court, by allowing re-examination bf the witness has not committed 4^^W i:'3 '^, ,(?;'^ %.^y ^ ^ ^ •^- any such palpable or manifest error of jurisd'ictton so as to jnvolve exercise of jurisdiction uncter Arttete 227 of the Constitution oflndia.It te settted law that jurisdtetkMi uncter Articte 227 of tte Constltution of Ind®cannot be exercised to irrterfere wtth the proceedings of the tria! Court at interim or interiocutory stage. The argument raised by the teamed counsel for the petftioner that he shaU be prejudteed toy the permission granted by the trtal Court for re-examination is ateo not having any substance inasmuch as in course of trial both the parties shalt be at liiberty to adduce evidence and to examine and cross examination each others witnesses. When the trial is in progress and witnesses are examined, there is no question of prejudice belng caused to any of the parties if re-examination of a particular w}tnes®is» ordered and that too when prayer for re-examlnation has been made immediately. (6) The instant pet'rtion under Arttete 227 of the Constitution of India faite and is hereby dismissed. __- Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge )-