Full Text
Translation output
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 394/2013
SH ASHOK SAHDEV Appellant
Through: Mr Peeyush Kalra and Mr Rakesh^ Garg, Advocates.
FAO(OS) 394/2013
SH ASHOK SAHDEV Appellant
Through: Mr Peeyush Kalra and Mr Rakesh^ Garg, Advocates.
VERSUS
I
VIDUR SAHDEV AND ORS Respondents
Through
VIDUR SAHDEV AND ORS Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
04.09.2013 CM No.13423/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
04.09.2013 CM No.13423/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 394/2013 & CM No.13422/2013
This appeal has been filed by the defendant in CS(OS) No.396/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2013 passed by a learned Single
Judge in lA No.1514/2010 and other connected lAs being lA Nos.89/2010, 5871/2011, 7555/2013, 12021/2013 and 19812/2011. The points sought to be urged before us is that in the said suit, two wills one of Smt Shakuntala and Sh Sahdev are in question. The learned Single Judge has directed cross- examination of the two alleged witnesses to the execution of the said wills being Mr Anil Bhalla and Dr S. C. Parakh. Both these persons are senior citizens and it is for this reason that the learned Single Judge has directed that the cross-examination be conducted at an early date. Before the learned
Smgle Judge, the parties were in agreement that since the wills were being
2013:DHC:7330-DB questioned the same be sent for expert opinion to the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory. The only pointthat is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that while, the defendant has no objection to the wills being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for their expert opinion, he has objection to the fact that cross-examination of the said two witnesses has been directed to be conducted prior to the wills being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. He submits that he would be denied an opportunity to cross-examination the said witnesses on the basis ofthe opinion which may be received from the CFSL.
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly directed that the senior citizens be cross-examined first on account of their age. In case there is a need for the defendant to recall the said witnesses after receipt ofthe opinion ofthe CFSL, itwould beopen tohim to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.08.2013. The appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2013
MK
2013:DHC:7330-DB
This appeal has been filed by the defendant in CS(OS) No.396/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2013 passed by a learned Single
Judge in lA No.1514/2010 and other connected lAs being lA Nos.89/2010, 5871/2011, 7555/2013, 12021/2013 and 19812/2011. The points sought to be urged before us is that in the said suit, two wills one of Smt Shakuntala and Sh Sahdev are in question. The learned Single Judge has directed cross- examination of the two alleged witnesses to the execution of the said wills being Mr Anil Bhalla and Dr S. C. Parakh. Both these persons are senior citizens and it is for this reason that the learned Single Judge has directed that the cross-examination be conducted at an early date. Before the learned
Smgle Judge, the parties were in agreement that since the wills were being
2013:DHC:7330-DB questioned the same be sent for expert opinion to the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory. The only pointthat is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that while, the defendant has no objection to the wills being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for their expert opinion, he has objection to the fact that cross-examination of the said two witnesses has been directed to be conducted prior to the wills being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. He submits that he would be denied an opportunity to cross-examination the said witnesses on the basis ofthe opinion which may be received from the CFSL.
We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has correctly directed that the senior citizens be cross-examined first on account of their age. In case there is a need for the defendant to recall the said witnesses after receipt ofthe opinion ofthe CFSL, itwould beopen tohim to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.08.2013. The appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2013
MK
2013:DHC:7330-DB
JUDGMENT