'Party Cannot Be Denied Examination Of Witness Merely On Account Of Witness Being Unwell': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a party cannot be denied examination of a witness merely on account of the witness being unwell, observing that such a direction is untenable in law and contrary to the principles of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that if a witness is competent and possesses relevant knowledge of the facts in issue, health concerns may justify adjournment, but cannot justify compelling a party to substitute the witness.

Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing orders vide which, on an application seeking adjournment on the ground that a witness proposed to be examined was unwell, the District Court directed that the witness be changed and that a “healthy witness” be examined.

The High Court held that such reasoning was legally unsustainable. It noted that under the Evidence Act, a witness who is competent and has personal knowledge of relevant facts cannot be precluded from deposing merely because of health issues.

“If a witness is competent to depose and certain facts are within his knowledge, he cannot be precluded from deposing only on the basis that he has health issues,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that while illness may cause delay in recording evidence, that by itself cannot deprive a party of the right to lead material evidence through a particular witness. It observed:

“There may be a delay in the proceedings because he was unwell, but that cannot be a justification to deny the party seeking to examine that witness, to record evidence of that witness which may be relevant.”

The writ petitions also challenged an earlier order dated 18.09.2025 by which the Reference Court had rejected an application for the impleadment of necessary parties in the Section 18 reference. The High Court held that the Reference Court had acted contrary to Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates issuance of notice to specified parties, including all persons interested in the objection and, where the objection relates to compensation, to the Collector.

In the factual backdrop, the respondent's claim to compensation was founded on an alleged agricultural tenancy against the Communidade of Bambolim, and related proceedings under Section 30 of the Act and tenancy adjudication were already pending. The Court therefore quashed the order rejecting impleadment and directed that the Communidade of Bambolim and the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) be impleaded as respondents in the reference.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed in terms of the directions issued.

Case Title: The Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare v. Mr. Teofilo J. Monteiro [Writ Petition Nos. 128 of 2026 and 127 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 79

Click Here To Read/Download Order