Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 102/2018
JASMINE KAUR & ORS Appellants
Through: Mr.H.Upadhyay, Adv.
Through: Mr.S.K.Sharma, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Yugant Kuhar, Adv. for R-2.
Mr.R.K.Sharma, Adv. for R-3 to 9.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER o/o 05.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Challenging an interlocutory order dated 15'^ March, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S.(OS) No.872/2010 closing the right ofthe appellants to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground that they have not filed thewritten statement, this appeal has been filed under Section 10 ofthe Delhi Hgih Court Act and Rules.
2. From the facts that have come on record, it is clear that appellants have stepped into the shoes of one Sh.Harmeet Singh Vohra who was originally the defendant in the suit in question. While Sh.Harmeet Singh Vohra who was alive, his right to file the written statement was closed and he did not file any written statement. Vide order passed on 27'^^ April, 2016 eventhough the legal heirs of Sh.Harmeet Singh Vohra werepermitted to be brought on record but since even after service Sh.Harmeet Singh Vohra since 16"" November, 2013 has not filed the written statement, his right to file the written statement also stood closed. Now, once the right to file the FAO (OS)No.102/2018 Page 1 of[2] 2018:DHC:8722-DB M written statement ofthe original defendant was closed, the Court has, in the impugned order, observed that the legal heirs will have no right to crossexamine the witnesses. Challenging the said order, this appeal has been field.
3. We find that the order passed on April, 2016 closing the right of the legal heirs to file the written statement and the original order passed on 14"^ December, 2010 closing the right ofSh.Harmeet Singh Vohra to file the written statement have not been challenged, now at this stage the order of the Court refusing permission to cross-examine the witnesses cannot be looked into when the right to file the written statement stood closed which order has attained finality. Without written statement or defence of the appellant being available on record, there is no question ofpermitting them to cross-examine the witnesses and if considering all these factors, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer, we see no reason to make any indulgence intothe matter at this interlocutory stage inthis appeal.
4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE •1[
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J