Full Text
Translation output
I
$-4 & 34 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)752/2018 &CMs No.26905-26906/2018
BASANT INDIA INC .... Petitioner
Through Ms.Stuti Gupta,Adv.
$-4 & 34 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)752/2018 &CMs No.26905-26906/2018
BASANT INDIA INC .... Petitioner
Through Ms.Stuti Gupta,Adv.
VERSUS
KENYA AIRWAYS " Respondent
Through Mr.Nikhil Chawla,Adv. &
Through Mr.Nikhil Chawla,Adv. &
CM(M)786/2018 & CMs No.27913-27916/2018
KENYA AIRWAYS Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhil Chawla,Adv.
KENYA AIRWAYS Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhil Chawla,Adv.
VERSUS
BASANTINDIA INC Respondent
Through Ms.Stuti Gupta,Adv.
Through Ms.Stuti Gupta,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
18.07.2018 Vide the CM(M)No.752/2018 the petitioner thereofi.e. the plaintiff in CS No.618533/2016 before the learned trialxourt of the learned ADJ, (Central-14), Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi assails the order dated 25.5.2018 by which the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff ofthe said suit seeking a further opportunity to the plaintifffor summoning the witness was declined,it having been observed vide the order datedl6.4.2018
18.07.2018 Vide the CM(M)No.752/2018 the petitioner thereofi.e. the plaintiff in CS No.618533/2016 before the learned trialxourt of the learned ADJ, (Central-14), Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi assails the order dated 25.5.2018 by which the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff ofthe said suit seeking a further opportunity to the plaintifffor summoning the witness was declined,it having been observed vide the order datedl6.4.2018
CM(M)752/2018,& CM(M)786/2018 page no. 1 of3
2018:DHC:9314 5/ that one single opportunity was granted to the plaintiffto lead plaintiffs evidence which has already been availed of by the petitioner/plaintiff, the application could not be allowed and the same was dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority.
Learned counsel forthe respondent submits thatthere is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner, in the event ofthe prayer made by the respondent vide CM(M)No.786/2018 is allowed, assailing the very same impugned order dated 25.5.2018 whereby cross-examination ofPW-2 to be_ conducted by the defendant to the said proceedings i.e. the petitioner in
CM(M)No.786/2018 was declined and no opportunity was granted to the defendant of the said sujt i.e. the petitioner in CM(M) No.786/2018 to conduct the cross-examination ofPW-2inasmuch as the affidavit ofthe said witness had been filed only on 25.5.2018 and there was no opportunity for the petitioner of CM(M)786/2018 i.e. the defendant to prepare to conduct the cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff in CS No. 618533/2016 i.e. the petitioner ofCM(M) No.786/2018 too does not oppose the prayer made by the defendant to CS 618533/2016 i.e. the petitioner of CM(M)752/2018 seeking that the petition CM (M)752/2018 be correspondingly allowed.
Taking into account the submission made through the application under
Section 151 CPC that had been filed before the learned trial courtto enlarge the time ofthe plaintifffor summoning the concerned clerk from Registrar of Firms, Delhi Administration, Plot No.419, FIE, Patparganj Industrial
Area, Delhi-110092,to bring the entire record with respect to plaintifffirm i.e. all the partnership deeds registered with the Registrar from time to time
2018:DHC:9314 5/ that one single opportunity was granted to the plaintiffto lead plaintiffs evidence which has already been availed of by the petitioner/plaintiff, the application could not be allowed and the same was dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority.
Learned counsel forthe respondent submits thatthere is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner, in the event ofthe prayer made by the respondent vide CM(M)No.786/2018 is allowed, assailing the very same impugned order dated 25.5.2018 whereby cross-examination ofPW-2 to be_ conducted by the defendant to the said proceedings i.e. the petitioner in
CM(M)No.786/2018 was declined and no opportunity was granted to the defendant of the said sujt i.e. the petitioner in CM(M) No.786/2018 to conduct the cross-examination ofPW-2inasmuch as the affidavit ofthe said witness had been filed only on 25.5.2018 and there was no opportunity for the petitioner of CM(M)786/2018 i.e. the defendant to prepare to conduct the cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff in CS No. 618533/2016 i.e. the petitioner ofCM(M) No.786/2018 too does not oppose the prayer made by the defendant to CS 618533/2016 i.e. the petitioner of CM(M)752/2018 seeking that the petition CM (M)752/2018 be correspondingly allowed.
Taking into account the submission made through the application under
Section 151 CPC that had been filed before the learned trial courtto enlarge the time ofthe plaintifffor summoning the concerned clerk from Registrar of Firms, Delhi Administration, Plot No.419, FIE, Patparganj Industrial
Area, Delhi-110092,to bring the entire record with respect to plaintifffirm i.e. all the partnership deeds registered with the Registrar from time to time
CM(M)752/2018&CM(M)786/2018 page no.2of3 and the Forms-A,B,C issued to the plaintifffirm with reasons explained as to why requisite steps could not be taken in time though an application had been filed for filing the PF twice, and taking into account the factum that the affidavit ofPW-2 was supplied to the defendant i.e. the petitioner of
CM(M)No.786/2018 only on the date of25.5.2018 on which date itselfthe cross-examination ofthe PW-2 was declined, in the interest ofjustice it is considered appropriate to allow both the CM(M)No.752/2018 and CM(M)
No.786/2018 filed by the plaintiff and defendant of CS No. 618533/2016 respectively and the impugned order dated 25.5.2018 is thus, set aside with direction that one single opportunity be granted to the defendant ofCS NO. 618533/2016 i.e. petitioner of CM(M)No.786/2018 to conduct the cross- examination ofPW-2 Mayank Gupta to be produced by the plaintiffon the said date without default for which date steps be also taken in time by the plaintiffofthe said suit for production ofthe witness from the Registrar of
Firms, Delhi Administration as prayed vide application under Section 151
CPC filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial court on 25.5.2018. No adjournment be sought by the defendant for cross-examination of the said witness as well as OfPW-2.
The petitions CM(M) 752/2018 & CM(M) 786/2018 and the accompanying applications are disposed ofaccordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA,J JULY 18,2018 aj
CM(M)No.786/2018 only on the date of25.5.2018 on which date itselfthe cross-examination ofthe PW-2 was declined, in the interest ofjustice it is considered appropriate to allow both the CM(M)No.752/2018 and CM(M)
No.786/2018 filed by the plaintiff and defendant of CS No. 618533/2016 respectively and the impugned order dated 25.5.2018 is thus, set aside with direction that one single opportunity be granted to the defendant ofCS NO. 618533/2016 i.e. petitioner of CM(M)No.786/2018 to conduct the cross- examination ofPW-2 Mayank Gupta to be produced by the plaintiffon the said date without default for which date steps be also taken in time by the plaintiffofthe said suit for production ofthe witness from the Registrar of
Firms, Delhi Administration as prayed vide application under Section 151
CPC filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial court on 25.5.2018. No adjournment be sought by the defendant for cross-examination of the said witness as well as OfPW-2.
The petitions CM(M) 752/2018 & CM(M) 786/2018 and the accompanying applications are disposed ofaccordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA,J JULY 18,2018 aj
CM(M)752/2018&CM(M)786/2018 page no.3 of3
JUDGMENT