TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at as per the order dated 7th July, 2022, during the course of examination of DW-2, the learned Trial Court disallowed two questions, as being irrelevant to the matter in issue. 3. Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in disallowing the two questions. It was submitted that the petitioner has filed other cases against the respondent and her daughter-in-law, as also Swarn Singh for various amounts, both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as for recovery before the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant case had been filed when the cheque issued by the respondent was dishonoured. The respondent was the one who had given the post ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence or non-existence of the fact. It was submitted that law gave a right to the petitioner to put a question for the purposes of impeaching the creditworthiness of the witness DW-2 and thus, the two questions were relevant and be allowed to be put to the witness. 7. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that witness DW-2 had been summoned and examined only to prove the CD. The questions in cross-examination had to be related to the examination-in-chief and could not be unrelated questions. It was submitted that the two questions specifically put to the witnesses were vague and the question put was relating "any other transaction" and such a fishing question was not relevant at all. It was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others" (see : Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (ii) "Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places" (see : Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (iii) "Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant" (see : Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (iv) "Any fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of examinations", i.e., the witnesses are to be examined-in-chief then cross-examined and thereafter, re-examined. It underlines that the examination and cross-examination must relate to the relevant facts. The cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination-in-chief. The re-examination is to be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in the cross-examination and even if a new matter, with the permission of court, is introduced in re-examination, then the adverse party would have a further right to cross-examine on that matter. 14. Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbarking on a rambling course, the Trial Judge is well empowered to put an end to such questioning. 16. The question at hand is whether the Trial Court has rightly disallowed the questions. To answer that question, the petitioner ought to have established how the questions were relevant. Merely because certain questions have been put during the cross-examination of the complainant/petitioner is not a reason enough, as relevance is not a question of parity. The questions put to the complainant in his cross-examination would have been considered for their relevance and are not in question before this Court. What however is, are the two questions disallowed by the learned Trial Court, namely, Q. Have you or your mother or your wife....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as every relevant fact before DW-2 in order to prove his case". This statement appears more an attempt to recall the DW-2 for further cross-examination rather than to limit the cross-examination to the disallowed questions. It is trite that no party can be allowed to fill-in lacunae left in the examination of the witnesses on the basis of hindsight. Clearly, such a prayer cannot be entertained. 18. However, turning to the question of whether two questions have been rightly or wrongly disallowed, it may be seen that the very case of the petitioner is that it was the respondent who had borrowed from him and the cheque in question has been issued by her towards repayment. Whatever be the defence taken by the respondent, the petitioner woul....