Case Title:
Capitol Art House (P) Ltd v. Neha Dutta
Date of Order:
June 1, 2022
Bench:
Justice Amit Bansal
Parties:
Capitol Art House (P) Ltd (Plaintiff) & Neha Dutta (Defendant)
Subject
The re-examination of the witness cannot be allowed if there is no ambiguity in the statements made by him/her during cross-examination, for which further explanations are needed.
Important provisions
Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Overview
A suit was filed seeking an injunction against the defendants from unlawfully entering the shop. In the mentioned case, the issues were framed in the suit on August 2, 2019, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to record evidence of the parties who were supposed to be paid Rs. 1,00,000 as his fees by the plaintiff. Later, the Hon’ble Court noted that in proceedings before the Local Commissioner in May 2022 the defendant’s counsel requested the re-examination of witnesses but it was opposed by the plaintiff and after hearing the submissions, the issue was referred to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by the Local Commissioner for further directions.
The High Court consequently opined that under the disguise of re-examination, the defendant’s counsel cannot ask the witnesses to give further explanations to her answers given during the cross-examination.
Issues Raised
- Whether or not the witness can be re-examined even after he/she has been examined once?
Arguments advanced by the Plaintiff
- The counsel on behalf of the plaintiff strongly opposed the arguments of the defendant.
- Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Simrin Singh v. Amrit Srinivasan and Ors. [2018 SCC OnLine Del 7177] and contended that the witness cannot be allowed to be re-examined as she has already answered in ‘yes’ and ‘no’.
- The plaintiff argued that the witness is an educated person, who is a law graduate and consciously chose to give the answers in ‘yes’ or ‘no’, therefore, cannot be compelled to get re-examined and give any further explanations for her answers.
Arguments advanced by the Defendant
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant referred to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rammi Alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1999 (8) SCC 649].
- Section 138 of the said Act provides:
“Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.”
- The counsel contended that the defendant was entitled to re-examine the witness as the witness replied only in ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
- The defendant further argued that in order to get the proper explanation for the questions asked from the witness, re-examination was mandatory.
Judgment Analysis
- The Hon’ble Court ruled that since the witness, being a law graduate has already answered consciously in yes or no, without any supporting explanation there is no ambiguity in her answers.
- The Court further added that “Re-examination cannot be used to give a chance to the witness to undo the statement of the witness made in cross-examination and fill in the lacunae in evidence”.
- The Hon’ble Court decided that no case for re-examination was made out and therefore the plaintiff shall pay the additional amount of Rs. 75,000 to the Local Commissioner for the time and efforts put in by him.
- The Hon’ble Court referred to the plaintiff’s reliance on the observations made in the case of Simirin Singh and stated that “though Section 138 supra permits re-examination 'to explain the matters referred to in cross-examination' and permits further cross-examination of the witness thereafter, only if the Court has in re-examination permitted new matters to be introduced (else, after re-examination, there is no right of further cross-examination)”.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi rightly held that re-examination cannot be allowed to give an opportunity to the witness to undo what has already been stated in the cross-examination. The re-examination provision as per the observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi can be interpreted in a way that, it provides for an opportunity to seek an explanation for the statements made by the witness in the cross-examination. But as in the concerned case, the witness answered willingly and consciously in ‘yes’ and ‘no’, therefore, there was no ambiguity for which the re-examination should have been allowed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
