9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 25th July, 2009 whereby review application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner has sought review/recall of an order dated 21st February, 2009 whereby the trial court had closed cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff since the defendant counsel did not turn up for cross-examination of the witness whose cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court about the incorrect facts having been stated in the review application. The correct facts show that PW-1 was partly cross-examined on 30th August, 2008. His further cross-examination was deferred for 25th October, 2008 when none was present on behalf of the defendant. However, the plaintiff also sought adjournment on that day since his counsel was out of station. The case was adjourned for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not go to the chamber of the advocate for signing reviewing application in time. The trial court found that there was no medical certificate attached to the application about health of the defendant or about his confinement. 5. I consider that principles of natural justice do not require that a case should be adjourned time and again because defendant's counsel adopt tactics of not appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel is supposed to manage his diary in such a manner that when there is a case for examination/cross-examination of the witnesses, he is there in the court for cross-examination, if not in the morning at 10 a.m. then around 11 a.m. when the miscellaneous matters are over. The court cannot keep on postponing evidence cases. If evidence cases are passed over time and again, ultimate result is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
