2018 (3) TMI 1334 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - cross-examination - production of documents - The Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner had been given sufficient time to cross-examine the witnesses however the petitioner was delaying the proceedings. The Trial Court was of the view that the petitioner was trying to deliberately create difficulties for the Court to prevent conclusion of evidence. The Court was of the view that the witness could only be put relevant questions and could not be compelled to produce any document. Held that - Perusal of the orders of the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court makes it clear that the petitioner who is appearing in person has been repeating questions which the Court has found to be irrelevant. The Court seems to be kept engaged for substantial periods of time in dealing with the questions which the Court is of the view are irrelevant - the order of the Revisional Court to some extent calls for interference. Imposition of cost - Held that - since this is a discretionary power exercised by the Revisional Court it should not be interfered - imposition of cost upheld. Production of documents - Held that - the Revisional Court has already given liberty to the petitioner to place on record the documents which may be relevant for the purposes of trial. In case the petitioner requires to confront any witness with any document which are not in his power or possession and which are required to be summoned from a third party it would be open to the petitioner to apply to the Trial Court for the said purpose. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Impugning order of Trial Court closing right to cross-examine witnesses.
2. Revisional Court granting one more opportunity for cross-examination with conditions.
3. Dispute over production of arbitral record.
4. Repeated irrelevant questions during cross-examination.
5. Direction to conclude cross-examination on one date.
6. Imposition of cost by Revisional Court.
7. Preparation of questions in advance for cross-examination.
8. Production of relevant documents during trial.

Issue 1: Impugning Trial Court's order on cross-examination:
The petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order closing the right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses. The Trial Court believed the petitioner was deliberately delaying proceedings by insisting on document production before cross-examination. The Revisional Court granted another chance for cross-examination with conditions, including payment of costs.

Issue 2: Revisional Court's decision on cross-examination:
The Revisional Court allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses with specified conditions. It required the petitioner to pay a cost before cross-examination, conclude cross-examination on the same day without seeking adjournments, and prepare questions in advance with Trial Court approval.

Issue 3: Dispute over production of arbitral record:
The petitioner sought to produce the arbitral record for cross-examination, which the Revisional Court found unnecessary. The Court emphasized limiting cross-examination to relevant aspects under the Negotiable Instrument Act, allowing the petitioner to present relevant documents during the trial.

Issue 4: Repeated irrelevant questions during cross-examination:
The Trial Court noted the petitioner repeatedly asked irrelevant questions during cross-examination, suggesting the need for legal representation. The Court advised seeking legal aid if unable to engage a private counsel to ensure proper conduct during proceedings.

Issue 5: Direction to conclude cross-examination on one date:
The Court found the direction to conclude cross-examination in a single day burdensome due to the volume of documents involved. It granted discretion to the Trial Court to allow further time if necessary, considering the complexity of the case and the Court's availability.

Issue 6: Imposition of cost by Revisional Court:
The Revisional Court imposed a cost on the petitioner for further cross-examination, which was upheld by the High Court. The petitioner was directed to pay the cost as ordered, emphasizing compliance with the Court's directives.

Issue 7: Preparation of questions in advance for cross-examination:
The petitioner was instructed to prepare questions in advance for cross-examination, ensuring compliance with the Revisional Court's directions. The Trial Court would permit additional questions based on witness responses and circumstances during the proceedings.

Issue 8: Production of relevant documents during trial:
The Revisional Court allowed the petitioner to present relevant documents during the trial, emphasizing the importance of relevance and adherence to the procedures under the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to seek assistance from legal aid if required for proper representation.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the legal complexities and decisions made by the courts regarding the petitioner's right to cross-examine witnesses and the production of relevant documents during the trial.