 |
| Cross examination 2026 clc 231 |
نامکمل کراس ایگزامینیشن اور اپیل میں تاخیر کے قانونی اثرات (2026 CLC 231)
🔹 تعارف
🔸 پس منظر
🔷 کراس ایگزامینیشن کی اہمیت
🔶 نامکمل جرح کا اثر
⭐ تاخیر اور اس کی معافی
🔺 ناکافی جواز کا اثر
🔻 فیصلہ
💡 نتیجہ
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 231
[Sindh]
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ
A & R ASSOCIATES through Managing Partner -Appellant
Versus
AHMED ALI BUGTI ---Respondent
High Court Appeal No. 167 of 2019, decided on 9th July, 2024.
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--
Arts. 2(c), 71 & 132-Evidence, producing of---Party's failure to complete its cross-examination---Effect-Suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to complete cross-examination of his witnesses-Validity-The term "evidence" encompasses examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination as outlined in Art. 132, together with Arts. 2(c) & 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984-A cross-examination is a continuing part of the whole statement and often more crucial than the examination-in-chief---The right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental and I and inalienable right of the accused; without this opportunity, the court cannot rely on the evidence of those witnesses-Cross-examination is crucial for uncovering the truth and any party must have the chance to cross-examine opposing witnesses--Evidence affecting a party is inadmissible unless the party has had the opportunity to test its truthfulness through cross-examination If no opportunity is provided to cross-examine a deponent, his testimony would be inadmissible-In the present case, however, appellant's witness was substantially cross-examined on two occasions, after which he voluntarily abstained despite being given further opportunities to appear while no reason was documented for his absence-If a party chooses to abstain from taking the witness stand, it can result in an adverse inference being drawn against it, suggesting that the party is withholding testimony because it would be damaging to its case---Moreover, at the very least, the incomplete cross-examination should not be used adversely against the accused or opposing party-However, if there is relevant material, the incomplete cross-examination of the party or witness may be used against them, provided that the existing material or evidence justifies such a conclusion, rather than discarding the incomplete cross-examination outright--Said baseline standards would ensure that parties cannot strategically avoid or abandon cross-examination midway without potential consequences---Division Bench of the High Court maintained the impugned judgment and decree passed by Single Bench dismissing suit filed by the appellant---Appeal was dismissed, PP
Muhammad Shah v. The State 2010 SCMR 1009; Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State 2003 SCMR 1374; Yahya Bakhtiar, Advocate v. The State PLD 1983 SC 291; Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Altaf of Hussain Hussain 1986 1986 SCMR SCMR 1736: Pir Mazhar ul Haq v. The State PLD 2005 SC 63 and Abid Ali v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 1088 ref.
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
S. 5 & First Sched., Art. 151--Delay in filing appeal against judgment passed by Single Bench of High Court---Condonation of delay-Sufficient cause, absence of---The time limit for filing an appeal prescribed under Art. 151 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is twenty (20) days, starting from the date of the decree or order of a High Court passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction-The instant High Court Appeal was overdue by five (5) days, while appellant in an application seeking condonation of the delay cited his wife's illness as the reason for the late filing, however, no documentary evidence such as medical records confirming her illness or supporting his claim was provided along with the application initially-Later on, the appellant presented a statement (annexing medical prescription certificate etc.) yet the same (statement) was neither sworn nor accompanied by the said partner's affidavit Therefore, said reason could not be considered a sufficient cause or a compelling ground ind for justifying the delay-Importantly, the delay in filing the High Court Appeal had vested rights in the respondent, which could not be disregarded unless the defaulting party (ie. Appellant) demonstrated sufficient cause and explained each day's delay--Consequently, the delay in filing present HCA could not be condoned-Appellant's application for condonation of delay was dismissed-High Court Appeal was time barred--Division Bench of the High Court maintained the impugned judgment and decree passed by Single Bench dismissing suit filed by the appellant---Appeal was dismissed.
KSKB-KNK Joint Venture v. Water and Power Development Authority 2022 SCMR 1615 ref. Kazim Hussain Mahesar for Appellant. Mehmood A. H. Baloch for Respondent.