Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.05.2025
ARJUN CHOWDHRY .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv.
Through: Mr.Ashish Negi, Mr.Satish Sharma, Advs for R-1
Mr.Jagdish Chandra, CGSC, Mr.Tushar Arora, Mr.Shubhankar Mishra, Advs. for UOI.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, challenging the Order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. NO. 2243/2025 in CS (OS) 1906/2006, titled Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Shaheed Memorial Society (Regd.), dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein seeking recall and further cross-examination of PW[2], Mr.Shammi, who had appeared as a witness from the Office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana (ROC).
3. The above application was premised on the submission that PW[6], who was examined on 02.12.2024, had inter alia exhibited two documents, that is, a Letter dated 18.07.2000 addressed by the ROC to the Bench Officer, Company Law Board (Ex.PW6/2), and a Letter dated 15.05.2007, also addressed by the ROC to the Bench Officer, Company Law Board.
4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that while PW[2], in his evidence has produced the copies of the Annual Returns of the plaintiff no.1 company for the years 1968, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, exhibited as Ex.PW2/36 to Ex.PW2/42, in the Letter dated 18.07.2000 (Ex.PW6/2), it has been mentioned that the Annual Returns of the company, inter alia, for the years 1979 to 1984 have not been taken on record by the ROC. Similarly, in the Letter dated 15.05.2007, it has been mentioned by the ROC that the Annual Returns of the company prior to the year 1979 are not available as the same have been weeded out. He submits that, therefore, PW[2] now needs to be cross-examined on how he had produced the Annual Returns marked as Ex.PW2/36 to Ex.PW2/42.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, who appears on advance notice of this appeal, submits that the above two documents, that is, Ex.PW6/2 and the Letter dated 15.05.2007, were already on record of the Suit and had already been exhibited as Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/45, when PW[2] had appeared as a witness in the Suit. The appellant had cross-examined PW[2] on these documents, as would be evident from his deposition recorded by the learned Local Commissioner on 04.09.2024. He submits that the application in question was filed merely to delay the trial and also to fill up the lacuna that had been left behind by the appellant.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.
7. It is not denied by the appellant that the Letter Ex.PW6/2 and the Letter dated 15.05.2007 had already been filed by the respondent no.1 in the suit and had been duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/45. A perusal of the statement of PW[2], recorded by the learned Local Commissioner on 04.09.2024, also shows that PW[2] was duly cross-examined on these two documents.
8. The suit is of the vintage of the year 2006. Allowing such an application at this belated stage, merely to fill up the lacunas, if any, left by the appellant, would further delay the trial, which cannot be permitted.
9. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J DHARMESH SHARMA, J MAY 5, 2025/Arya/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any