Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr

1. Petitioner has filed a suit for recovery against Delhi Development Authority (DDA). After completing its evidence, the case was fixed for evidence of defendant i.e. DDA.

2. One Mr. R.C. Meena entered into witness box as DW-1. When he appeared on 19.12.2018 before the learned Trial Court for further cross-examination, his further cross-examination was deferred and he was directed to produce certain record.

3. The matter was adjourned to13.02.2019.

4. When the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 13.02.2019, as per the contents of the proceedings, such witness appeared before the Court and was further cross-examined and discharged and, resultantly, the matter was listed for final arguments.

5. The abovesaid order dated 13.02.2019 reads as under:- CM(M) 1493/2019 2 “Present: Sh. Shresht, Adv. Ld. Proxy counsel for plaintiff. DW-1 Sh. R.C. Meena in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. P.K. Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Shahbaz Ahmed, Adv. Ld. Local Commissioner in person. Balance fee of Local Commissioner of Rs.3000/- is paid. DW-1 is further cross-examined and discharged. Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that there is no other witness to be examined by the defendant. Statement of defendant in this regard is recorded. Put up for final arguments on 08.05.2019.”

6. The plaintiff moved an application seeking recall of the abovesaid order, contending that on that particular day, the arguing counsel was busy in Supreme Court and, being already pre-occupied, he sent request through his Associate/Junior to seek adjournment but instead of adjourning the matter, the case had been posted for final arguments. It was also mentioned in the application that the order-sheet dated 13.02.2019, inadvertently, reflects as if DW-1 was further cross-examined and discharged. It was, categorically, mentioned therein that on that particular day, no cross-examination whatsoever, was conducted.

7. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that the application seeking recall was filed by the plaintiff.

8. Such application has been dismissed on 04.09.2019. Dismissal is primarily for the reason that the abovesaid witness Mr. R.C. Meena has been dropped by the defendants.

9. Such order is under challenge.

10. Learned counsel for DDA is also present in the Court and, when asked, he, in all fairness, admitted that there is no separate evidence-sheet with respect to examination of Mr. R.C. Meena on 13.02.2019. He submits that, perhaps, by virtue of the proceedings conducted that day, the learned Trial CM(M) 1493/2019 3 Court wanted to indicate merely the presence of the witness before the Court and also the fact that the opportunity for his further cross-examination had been closed.

11. Be that as it may, fact remains that when DW[1] R.C. Meena was under cross-examination on 19.12.2018, there was a specific direction to him to produce the relevant record and, therefore, only the matter was adjourned for 13.02.2019 and since it is admitted by learned counsel for DDA that no further cross-examination, actually, took place on 13.02.2019. The present petition is disposed of with direction to learned Trial Court to permit plaintiff to conduct further cross-examination of DW-1 Mr. R.C. Meena.

12. The next date before the learned Trial Court is stated to be 22.05.2025.

13. It is, however, worthwhile to mention that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for DDA expressed his apprehension about the health condition of said witness.

14. It is, therefore, made clear that it will be upto the learned Trial Court to consider the abovesaid aspect and the Court would insist for further cross-examination of DW-1, only if, he is found to be in a fit condition to depose before the Court, and not otherwise.

15. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.