9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. rejected by the lower court. 2. Dispute regarding the necessity of cross-examination of the deponent. 3. Scope of revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. 4. Conditions for exercising judicial discretion under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. 5. Jurisdictional error in entertaining revision petition. Analysis: 1. The revision petition challenged the rejection of an application under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. by the lower court. The petitioner argued that the plaintiff did not provide documentary evidence for the alleged tenancy, relying mainly on his own affidavit. The petitioner sought an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff to establish the veracity of the claims made in the affidavit. 2. The non-petitioners contended that circumstantial evidence supported the alleged tenancy claim and opposed the revision petition. They argued that the petitioner's application lacked sufficient reasons for cross-examination under Rule 2 of Order 19 C.P.C. The non-petitioners emphasized the limited scope of a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. and the necessity for justifying the request for cross-examination. 3. The judgment referenced various legal precedents to establish the scope of Section 115 C.P.C. and the restrictions on the High Court's revisionary powers. It highlighted that the High Court could not vary or reverse an order unless it would lead to a failure of justice or irreparable injury. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions specified in the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code. 4. The judgment delved into the conditions required for exercising judicial discretion under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. It cited cases where courts allowed cross-examination based on the potential failure of justice if the order under revision stood. The court emphasized the need for a bonafide application supported by cogent reasons and the necessity for cross-examination in the interest of justice. 5. The analysis concluded that the lower court had the jurisdiction to decide on granting permission for cross-examination under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. There was no evidence of material irregularity in the lower court's decision, and the conditions for granting permission were not met in this case. The judgment dismissed the revision petition based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and previous court decisions, emphasizing the lack of irreparable injury at that stage. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's reasoning behind dismissing the revision petition.
|
