Cross-Examination Is Rule Of Essential Justice, Non-Cross-Examination Implies Statement Of Witness Has Not Been Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts of the case

The respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of a building which was being used as a hotel in the name and style of Hotel Annapurna situated in Tirupati. The respondents/ plaintiffs had let out the suit schedule premises to the appellant/defendant partnership firm for a period of 7 years.

A suit was filed against the appellant/ defendant partnership firm for a direction to vacate the premises and deliver the peaceful possession of the same to the respondents/plaintiffs and for payment of costs. The suit was allowed and aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/defendant filed the appeal.

The appellant did not dispute the fact that the suit schedule property had been taken on lease by them. However, it was their contention that the appellants had advanced sum of Rs. 10,00,116/- as security deposit and had also extended about Rs. 75,00,000/- for interior decoration, repairs and renovation of the suit scheduled premises for running it as a hotel. The appellants contended that they were entitled for recovery of the aforesaid security deposit and the advanced sum.

Contention on both sides

The counsel for appellant/defendant contended that the respondents/plaintiff had not denied any of the allegations and statements made in reply legal notice, written statement as well as in the course of cross-examination of witnesses. As a consequence, it would have to be taken that the claim of the appellant/defendant relating to expenditure of Rs. 75,00,000/- and the requirement of respondents to repay the security deposit and expenditure incurred by the appellants is proved.

The counsel for respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the respondents would return the security deposit as and when the suit premises was handed over but the reimbursement of alleged expenditure of Rs. 75,00,000/- was not payable. No material had been placed by the appellant/defendant before trial Court to support the said claim.

Consideration of the Court

The only question for consideration of the Court was whether the appellant/defendant would be entitled for recovery of Rs. 75,00,000/- as condition precedent to handing over the suit scheduled premises to the respondents.

For contention of appellant to be accepted by the Court, the appellants would have to show either there was an agreement between the respondents and the appellants for appellants to recover the money or alternatively, the appellants were entitled in law to recover such amount.

The court observed that the appellant/defendant had not placed any material or evidence before trial Court to demonstrate that they had spent an amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- towards repairs and renovation.

The entire case was that the statements were made by appellant in the pleadings and depositions and the said statements would be binding on the other side unless the statements were specifically denied. Since there were no denials, the statements are agreed by the other side.

The Court referred to a Calcutta High Court judgment in A.E.G. Carapiet vs. A.Y. Derderian where it was held that when "the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice."

also noted the Supreme Court judgment in Muddasani Venkata Narasaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana that encapsulates the basic principles which need to be followed while cross-examining a witness.

"The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one's own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non-cross- examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed… The High Court of Calcutta in A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian [A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian, 1960 SCC OnLine Cal 44 : AIR 1961 Cal 359] has laid down that the party is obliged to put his case in cross-examination of witnesses of opposite party. The rule of putting one's version in cross- examination is one of essential justice and not merely technical one."

The Court was in full agreement with the said principles. However, it was observed that a suggestion denying the claims of the appellant/defendant had been made to DW 1 that no money was spent by the appellant/defendant for repairs or renovation of the suit premises as it was new construction. In view of the said suggestion, the principles of non-cross-examination are not applicable.

The Court hence did not interfere with the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

Case Title : K Prabhakar Reddy Versus Lakkaraja Munirathnam

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 42

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment