Full Text
Date ofJudgment:02.11.2018 CM(M)No.941/2018 & C.M.Nos.33037-33039/2018.35917/2018
VIKRAM CHANDHOK(SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS Petitioner
Through: Mr.ManojKumar,petitioner No.3 in person with his son Mr.Vidit Garg, law student.
Through:• None., CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YifeD GOEL VINOD GOEL,J.(ORAL)
CM No.46387/2018(for stay)
JUDGMENT
1. The impugned order dated/IA0420i[8] passed by the learned Additional District Judge-(j[4], Southeast District, Saket Courts, New Delhi('ADJ'), is the subject matter ofchallenge in this petition filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1 under Article 227 ofthe Constitution ofIndia. • ■ T',' •
2. By said order, learned 'ADJ' considered it expedient in the interest ofjustice to permit the respondent no.1/plaintiffto produce the original Deed of Family Settlement dated 12.01.1990, photocopy whereof was tendered into evidence as Mark-A, in exercise of its powers vested in terms ofOrder XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908('CPC')and Section 165 ofthe CM(M)No.941/2018. Page I of[3]. ■ ■■ 2018:DHC:9321 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('TEA'). The learned ADJ ordered for recalling of PWl/plaintiff/respondent no.l for his re-examination to the extent oftendering the original document in evidence along with an affidavit deposing with respect ofthe circumstances attending the custody and possession of the original document as from the date of institution ofthe civil suit till the date ofthe filing ofthe application under adjudication. However, the learned 'ADJ', by the impugned order, restricted the scope of,cross-examination of PWl, who was called for his re-examination only to- the aspect of the custody and possession ofthe original documerifiri.question. i ' *
3. The petitioner/defendant no.T haid^denied the execution of the deed of family settlement dated. 12.01.1990. It is therefore incomprehensible in law to lirriit;the scope of cross-examination of •' •:( PWl after his re-examination.tpftehderTh^^^ Deed of Family '-.V" i»• V'' Settlement. Therefore the"jmpughed bT,der;;ddted 16.04.2018 limiting the scope of cross-examin®.t]dt^^:^^^.iH^y-''the petitioner/defendant no.l is set-aside. It is made clear that the petitioner/defendant no.l shall have the right of the cross-examinati.dn of PWl after his reexamination on all aspects including'authenticity and veracity etc.
4. The application, being CM No. 46387/2018 is disposed of accordingly.
5. In view of the above discussion, the petition and pending applications, being CM No. 33037-33039/2018 & 35917/2018 are CM(M)No.941/2018 Page2of[3] disposed of. Since the petition is disposed of,the next date ofhearing, being 18.02.2019,is hereby cancelled.
VINOD GOEL,J.