Rohit Steels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Director, Vijaya Kumar Gupta Vs. Poddar Projects Ltd., Rep. by M.D., Sri Vinod Poddar, Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Holder - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. the respondent filed o.s. no. 444 of 1997 in the court of iii senior civil judge, city civil court, secunderabad, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. the trial itself commenced at a belated stage. the cross-examination of petitioner, as d.w.1 is said to have taken place in the month of august, 2006.2. the petitioner filed i.a.no. 1902 of 2006 in the suit under order xviii rule 17 read with section 151 cpc, to recall him for re-examination. he stated that he has answered several questions in the cross-examination in hindi and in the course of translation, some inaccuracy has crept in. it is also stated that the discrepancy, in what is stated by the petitioner and what was translated, was noticed only after the certified copy of the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 444 of 1997 in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial itself commenced at a belated stage. The cross-examination of petitioner, as D.W.1 is said to have taken place in the month of August, 2006.

2. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 1902 of 2006 in the suit under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, to recall him for re-examination. He stated that he has answered several questions in the cross-examination in Hindi and in the course of translation, some inaccuracy has crept in. It is also stated that the discrepancy, in what is stated by the petitioner and what was translated, was noticed only after the certified copy of the deposition was obtained. The application was resisted by the respondent and ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the LA. through its order, dated 18-10-2006. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Sri Javed Razack, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity for the petitioner to file the instant application arose on account of the fact that some of the sentences in the deposition of the petitioner were found to be at variance with what was stated by him. He has referred to various sentences in different paragraphs of the cross-examination.

4. It is not as if only those persons, who know English alone are permitted to depose in vernacular languages and the deposition is translated into English, by the Court. The presence of the counsel for parties ensures that the accurate translated version of the deposition is recorded. The discrepancies, if any, are corrected at more stages than one. Firstly, when the dictation takes place, the concerned parties or their counsel can certainly point out the real purport of the statement of the witness. Secondly, before the recorded deposition is signed, witnesses as well as the concerned counsel are supposed to go through it. The deposition acquires its evidentiary value only, when it is signed by the witness. Once the witness has chosen to sign it, he is supposed to have been satisfied about its accuracy and he cannot be permitted to turn around and complain of any inaccuracy.

5. Permitting the correction of deposition, at a later point of time, is prone to take away the importance of cross-examination. It may reflect on the capacity of the Presiding Officer also. If the sentences, in a deposition, are to be corrected, on the plea that it does not represent the correct translation, many admissions or crucial sentences, which are found to be against the interest of a particular party, can be overcome through this process. Further, if any accidental omissions have taken place and the party had lost the chance of correcting them through re-examination, the opportunity of leading further evidence to present the actual purport, is always there.

6. This Court is not satisfied with the plea raised by the petitioner and the trial Court dealt with this aspect in proper perspective.

7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.