Iqbal Qureshi vs Shri Jain Shwetambar Murti Pujak Sansthan Committee

Rohit Arya, J.—By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order dated 11/12/2013 passed in civil suit No. 7A/2012 by II Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior has been called in question by the petitioner/defendant. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed an application u/s 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant for recalling and cross-examination of plaintiff on issues framed subsequently as issue No. 8(a), 8(b) and 9, after recording the evidence of plaintiff/respondent. The Court below quoted the aforesaid issues framed subsequently in the impugned order which are as under:

8(a) Whether the plaintiff/society is a religious public trust?

8(b) Whether the plaintiff/society is exempted from the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961? and

Whether Khemchand S/o. Chunnilal being President of the plaintiff/society is competent to maintain the suit?

With reference to the aforesaid issues, it is held in the impugned order by the trial Court that there are specific pleadings in the plaint vide paras 1 to 4 and the same have also been denied in (Iqbal Qureshi v. Shri Jain Shwetambar Murti Pujak Sansthan Committee) the written statement by the petitioner/defendant. Besides, the plaintiff, Khemchand Jata has also deposed with reference to and in context of the aforesaid issues and also filed documents in that behalf. The defendant/petitioner had cross-examined the plaintiff on such issues as is evident from paras 1 to 3, 13, 20 to 27, 46 to 49, 60 to 63, 71, 81, 82 and 84 to 89 of the cross-examination of the plaintiff/respondent. Therefore, petitioner/defendant has examined the plaintiff on the aforesaid issues extensively. Merely because, the issues have been framed subsequently, this by itself will not justify for recalling of the plaintiff for cross-examination. Accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the application.

In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application of the defendant/petitioner as in the present case, the plaintiff made specific pleadings and defendant denied the same. Further, if the plaintiff has deposed in the context of the pleadings and subsequently, the defendant in turn cross-examined the plaintiff on such depositions, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the trial Court. If the witness is not recalled for cross-examination in view of the fact that issues so framed subsequently relates to all the pleaded facts in the plaint and contested by denying the same in the written statement by the defendant. Likewise, the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined at length based on the pleadings of the parties. As such, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order (Iqbal Qureshi v. Shri Jain Shwetambar Murti Pujak Sansthan Committee) warranting interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition sans merit and dismissed accordingly.

Certified copy as per rules.