Usha & Anr v. Pawan Kumar & Anr

1. By this common order I will dispose of the two petitions bearing CM(M) No.91/2015 and CM(M) No.784/2015 as the question in issue in both the petitions revolves around the fact whether DW-2 Sh.Krishan CM(M) Nos.91/2015 & 784/2015 PageI of[4] 2015:DHC:10830 Swamp Rana should have been directed by the learned Trial Court to produce the passbooks in respect of the bank accounts held by him. In CM(M) No.91/2015, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.87/2014 whereby the prayer of the petitioners for directions to DW-2 Sh.Krishan Swamp Rana to produce the passbook of the bank account held by him with Co-operative Bank, Shahbad Daulatpur Branch and Oriental Bank, Prehiad Pur Branch, was declined by the learned Trial Court. On 01.10.2014 further cross examination of DW-2. Sh.Krishan Swamp Rana was deferred giving an opportunity to the petitioners to satisfy the Court on this aspect. In CM(M) No.784/2015, the petitioners are impugning the order dated 11.08.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.87/20 14, which reads as under:- '11.08.2015 Present: Vipin Malik Ld Proxy counsel for the plaintiff LdAdvocate for the defendant alongwith DW-2 Sh.Krishan Swarup Rana in person. Case is fixed for further cross examination of DW[2]. An application U/s 151 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the plaint jff seeking an adjournment on the ground that the counsel is busy in the High Court. The adjournment is strongly V objected by the Ld. Advocate for the defendant on the ground that this is not a sufficient ground for adjournment. After some arguments it is submitted by the proxy counsel for the plaintiff that plain4ff had insisted for production of Pass Book by the witness DW[2] which was declined by the Court on 26.11.2014. He further submits that except for that, there are no more questions to be asked to the witness. Considering the fact that plaintff's prayer for production of passbook by the defendant witness has already been declined and admittedly nothing more needs to be put to the witness, the opportunity to further cross- CM(M) Nos.91/2015 & 784/2015 Page 2 of[4] examine DW[2] is closed. Ld. Counselfor the defendant has made a statement that he wishes to close the defendant evidence. The statement is recorded separately. DE stands closed. Put upforfinal arguments on 02.09.2015.'

4. Thus, the sole question requiring consideration by this Court is whether the learned Trial Court was justified in declining the request of the petitioner to direct the witness to produce the passbooks in respect of the bank accounts held by him.

5. The petitioner No.l Usha and petitioner No.2 Nikita (minor daughter of petitioner No.l) have filed Civil Suit No.87/2014 against Sh.Pawan Kumar and Sh.Krishan Swarup Rana, who are husband and father-in-law of petitioner No.l. In the said suit, the prayer made is for passing decree for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction has been sought by the petitioners.

6. Though the suit has been filed against Sh.Pawan Kumar and Sh.Krishan Swarup Rana - husband and father-in-law of the petitioner No.l, inpara 12 of theplaintit is pleaded thatthe defendant is the owner of a paint factory situated in Village Shahbad Daulatpur and also owner of gatta factory in the same area. The defendant also owned a pipe factory where large work force has been employed. In fact all averments are referring to the defendant (in singular) and not defendants. In these circumstances, when the petitioner No. 1 is wife of defendant No. 1 and defendants are stated to be running three factories, for the purpose of business transaction they have to maintain bank account. Hence the petitioner No.l cannot plead ignorance aboutthe bank accountbeing maintained by the defendants. CM(M) Nos.91/2015 & 784/2015 Page 3 of[4] Thus, the submissions ofthe petitioners that for the first time during cross examination ofDW-2 itwas revealed that DW-2 was having bank accounts hence should be directed to produce the passbooks, is highly improbable.

7. Itmay be noted that one ofthe reliefclaimed in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners is for rendition of accounts. In view thereofthe submission of the petitioner No.l that she was not aware of the bank accounts hence DW-2 be directed to produce the passbooks, has been rightly considered by the learned Trial Court.

8. The impugned orders do not suffered from any illegality. Both the petitions are dismissed.

9. No costs. CM No.1893/2015 (Stay) in CMHM) No.91/2ni[5] CM No.16606/2015 rStav) in CMrM) No.784/2ni[5] Dismissed as infructuous.