2002 (5) TMI 893 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
- Right of pro forma defendant to examine plaintiff's witness
- Interpretation of Evidence Act provisions regarding examination of witnesses
- Determining the necessity of examination of witnesses for effective adjudication

Analysis:
1. Right of pro forma defendant to examine plaintiff's witness:
The main issue in this judgment revolves around whether a pro forma defendant, who is friendly to the plaintiff, can examine the plaintiff's witness. The defendant No. 3, represented by Mr. Das, sought to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness in a friendly manner. However, objections were raised by the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Mitra, who argued that the pro forma defendant has no right to examine any of the plaintiff's witnesses. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and previous judgments to determine the pro forma defendant's standing in the case.

2. Interpretation of Evidence Act provisions regarding examination of witnesses:
The court delved into the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Sections 137 and 138, to understand the rights of parties in examining witnesses. It was highlighted that the examination of witnesses is crucial for proving or disproving the claims made by the parties in a suit. The court emphasized that the right to examine witnesses is limited to the parties involved in the case and the examination must relate to relevant facts of the issues raised in the suit.

3. Determining the necessity of examination of witnesses for effective adjudication:
In assessing the necessity of examining witnesses, the court underscored the importance of oral evidence in establishing facts-in-issue and relevant facts under the Evidence Act. The court scrutinized the nature of the suit, which involved questioning a previous court decree, and concluded that the pro forma defendant, who had no adversarial stance against the plaintiff, lacked the right to examine the plaintiff's witnesses. The court emphasized that the pro forma defendant's role is akin to a witness and does not hold a stake in the outcome of the suit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the pro forma defendant, being friendly to the plaintiff and lacking an adversarial position, does not have the right to examine the plaintiff's witnesses. The court based its decision on the provisions of the Evidence Act, the nature of the suit, and the lack of contest between the pro forma defendant and the plaintiff. The judgment highlighted the importance of relevant examination of witnesses for effective adjudication of disputes and upheld the limitations on the rights of parties to examine witnesses in a legal proceeding.