Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) No. 392/2014 9th December, 2014 DR. TILAK RAJ JAGGI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Adv.
Through: Ms. Nandita Abrol, Adv.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 05.10.2012 by which the trial court has allowed the application of respondents/plaintiffs and summoned two witnesses of the petitioner/defendant for cross examination with respect to documents. The two witnesses are DW-4 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sakri and DW-6 Sh. Pratap Singh. A consequential order dated 13.02.2014 is also challenged.
2. No doubt, the cross examination of DW-4 and DW-6 was closed after sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents/plaintiffs, however, it is conceded before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 2014:DHC:6864 the respondents/plaintiffs have only closed their evidence in affirmative i.e. rejoinder evidence in terms of the Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) still has to be led by the respondents/plaintiffs.
3. Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs states that DW-4 and DW-6 who have been recalled for their evidence, can be treated as witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs for the rejoinder evidence which has to be led.
4. Therefore, the effect of the statement of counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would be that the impugned order will be treated not for recalling DW-4 and DW-6 as witnesses of the petitioner/defendant, but as witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs, and hence the trial court is requested to make appropriate corrections in the statements of Sh.Vijay Kumar (DW-4) and Sh. Pratap Singh (DW-6) now to be recorded that their evidence will be as respondents'/plaintiffs’ witnesses.
5. Accordingly, though the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the impugned order be set aside on the ground that the impugned order allows to recall DW-4 and DW-6 but that aspect has already been addressed above because the witnesses DW-4 and DW-6 will be the witnesses of respondents/plaintiffs as stated by the counsel for respondents/plaintiffs, and in which evidence the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to lead as respondents/plaintiffs can always lead rejoinder evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC with respect to the issues of which onus is on the petitioner/defendant.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed.
DECEMBER 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. neelam