Full Text
CM(M)1132/2017
NIRAJ SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Samrat Nigam,Mr.Sudarshan Rajan,Mr.Arjun Gadhoke,Mr.Karanjot Singh, Md.Qamar Ali,Mr.Danish Ali,Advocates
Through: Mr.Ujjawal Jha,Mr.T.D.Sharma, Advocates
NIRAJ SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Samrat Nigam,Mr.Sudarshan Rajan,Mr.Arjun Gadhoke,Mr.Karanjot Singh, Md.Qamar Ali,Mr.Danish Ali,Advocates
Through: Mr.Ujjawal Jha,Mr.T.D.Sharma, Advocates
08.11.2017 CAV No.956/2017 in CM(M1 1261/2017
ORDER
1. The counselforthe caveator/respondent appears.
2. The caveatstands discharged. CMs No.40115-40116/2017 in CM(M)1261/2017(both for exemption!
3. Allowed,subjecttojust exceptions.
4. The applications are disposed of. CM(M)Nos. 1132/2017& 1261/2017 Page 1 of[3] 2017:DHC:8813 9^ rivinvn No.t2fiirann&CM'J"'inii't/tni?(forstav^ riyifivn No,1»^/M17&rM No.36ii^^rani7fforstay)
5. These petitions,both under Article 227 ofthe Constitution ofIndia, arisefromthesameSuitbeingSuitNo.8868/2016titled HarvinderSinghvs. MadhuriSharmaoftheCourtofAdditionalDistrictJudge,South EastDist, Saket Courts,Delhi.
6. CM(M)No.1132/2017 impugning the order dated IS'^' September, 2017 dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No.2 for allowinghandwritingexpertofthepetitioner/plaintifftotakephotographsof the documents on record and to examine the said handwriting expert,came up before this Court first on 13"^ October,2017 when the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 was found to be unprepared finding him to be younganopportunity wasgiventohim andthematterpostedtotoday.
7. Today, CM(M) No.1261/2017 impugning the order dated 28' October, 2017 refusing opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.2 to examine the handwriting expert whose affidavit by way ofexammation-inchief was presented was dismissed and the evidence of the petitioner/ defendant No.2 closed and the Suit posted for final arguments to 1 November,2017.
8. On enquiry,both counsels state that partfinal arguments were heard on V November,2017 and the Suit is listed for remaining final arguments for today.
9. In this view ofthe matter, it is not deemed appropriate to interfere withthe hearingoffinalargumentsintheSuitbyentertainingthesepetitions,th CM(M)Nos.1132/2017 1261/2017 ^ r at this stage. It has been suggested that it will be open to the petitioner/ defendant No.2 to, in the appeal if any preferred from the finaljudgment in the Suit, in accordance with law, also challenge the orders impugned in these petitions including on the same grounds as urged in these petitions.
10. The counselforthe petitioner/defendant No.2is agreeablethereto.
11. In this light ofthe matter,I refrain jfrom observing anything further.
12. The petitions are disposed ofwith the libejtyaforesaid.
NOVEMBER 08,2017 pk.. JIV SAHAIENDLAW,J CM(M)Nos. 1132/2017& I26I/20I[7] Page 3of[3]