Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 438 of 2013 Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- Union Of India, Thru' Secry. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Srivastava,P.N. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Anand Tiwari
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Tripathi who appears for the contesting respondents.
The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 12.9.2013 whereby an application No. 90-Ga filed by the revisionist has been rejected.
The said application has been filed by the plaintiff/revisionist seeking permission of the Court to re-examine P.W.-2 Rajkishor Sharma, on the ground that after his cross-examination the said Rajkishor Sharma, P.W.2, had filed an affidavit in Court, stating that at the time of his cross-examination he was in a state of fear on account of certain threats, extended to him. It was stated that on the day prior to his cross-examination, some unknown persons had come to his residence and threatened him not to depose against the defendants in the suit and that they also tutored him about what to state before the Court.
The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the Court on the ground that no names or details of the persons who had come to the residence of the P.W.2 to threaten him had been disclosed. The other ground for dismissing the application is that the object thereof was to fill in the lacunae in the plaintiff's case, which power the plaintiff does not possess.
The learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Vidha Shankar Vishwakarma and Ram Ram Nath Gupta [2013(96) ALR 456] especially in paragraph 13 thereof the said paragraph is extracted below:-
"13. In view of law, as discussed above, the learned trial Judge could have kept in mind that when, in a given case like this, there are two contradictory statements, on oath, of a particular person, the party who is examining him has got a natural right to get the veracity of the two stands of a particular person tested through cross-examination; that is the only recognized mode of procedure, the delay in making an application cannot be treated to be above justice, as justice is paramount, which deserves to be given its due at all stages of the proceedings, including interlocutory or otherwise."
This matter had been heard earlier and in the context of the arguments raised, revisionist had been directed to file, on record, his original examination-in-chief filed on affidavit. In so far as, the cross-examination is concerned, the same had already been filed along with the counter affidavit.
I have perused the examination-in-chief as also the cross- examination of P.W.2 and on such perusal, I do not find any contradiction in the statements made on affidavit and in the cross-examination conducted before the Court.
The subsequent, application which has been rejected and which is said to have been filed on the basis of an affidavit, filed by P.W.2 alleging that he had been coerced into making incorrect statements during his cross-examination, in my considered opinion, is not correct inasmuch as this Court does not find any contradictions between the examination-in-chief, filed on affidavit and the subsequent cross-examination which was allegedly, under duress.
In case what had been stated during cross-examination was under duress, there was bound to be some contractions in the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination. Since, no such contraction is found, I am inclined to accept the view taken by the Trial Court that the object of the application which has been dismissed by the order impugned, was an attempt to fill in the lacunae in the plaintiff's case.
For the same reason, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, which in my considered opinion does not suffer any jurisdictional error.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Neeraj MISHRA ANJANI KUMAR Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, PostalCode=211001, S=Uttar Pradesh, Phone=f6e3ce979d8983acfc0b3ea049885bf6 4ad5bbb33050e3dfe3e210927d94f413, SERIALNUMBER=004ee64f25f9f36f85dbdc7 1f5b0ec1e2f0938431e25dbbadc93823915b3 6c6f, CN=ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2018-04-28 13:07:48