Full Text
Translation output
tl \ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)686/2016
CHAMELI DEVI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ravinder S. Gara,Advocate.
CM(M)686/2016
CHAMELI DEVI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Ravinder S. Gara,Advocate.
VERSUS
LUCKY CHOUDHARY Respondent
Through None.
Through None.
CM(M)687/2016
CHAMELI DEVI Petitioner
Through Mr.Ravinder S,Gara,Advocate.
CHAMELI DEVI Petitioner
Through Mr.Ravinder S,Gara,Advocate.
VERSUS
LUCKY CHOUDHARY Respondent
Through None.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
20.07.2016 CM No.25487-88/2016(exemption^ in CM(M)686/2016
CM No.25491-92/2016(exemption^ in CM(M)687/2016
Exemption is allowed subjectto ailjustexceptions.
CM(M1 686/2016 and 25486/2016(stay)
CM(M1 687/2016 and 25490/2016(stavl Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to impugn the order dated 14.05.2016 by which an application moved by the petitioner
20.07.2016 CM No.25487-88/2016(exemption^ in CM(M)686/2016
CM No.25491-92/2016(exemption^ in CM(M)687/2016
Exemption is allowed subjectto ailjustexceptions.
CM(M1 686/2016 and 25486/2016(stay)
CM(M1 687/2016 and 25490/2016(stavl Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to impugn the order dated 14.05.2016 by which an application moved by the petitioner
CM(M)686/2016& 687/2016 page 1 of3
2016:DHC:8622 under Section 151 CPCfor adducing additional documents was dismissed.
The petitioner wanted to place on record certified copy ofdeposition ofwitnesses which were adduced in the civil suittitled asMrs.ChameliDevi vs. Rattan Singh. It was urged that the deposition ofthe witnesses which was adduced in the said suit be taken on the presentjudicial file and read as evidence for deciding the present application. The trial court noted that evidence in other suit which is between some other parties cannotbe read as evidence in any other suit. The application was dismissed with costs of
Rs.2,000/- as it wassaidto be moved to linger onthe presentsuit.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the proviso to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act to contend that if the previous proceedings whose documents are sought to be filed was between the same parties or between their representatives in interest, Section 33 would be applicable. He submits that in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, the father ofthe respondent was the defendant whereas here the son has moved the present petition. He relies uponjudgment ofthe privy council in the ease ofKrishnayya Surya Rao Bahadur Garu & Anr. vs.
VenkataKuniaraMahipathiSuryaRaoBahadur Garu,Rajah ofPittapur, AIR 1933 Privy Council2012 to contend that Section 33 ofthe Evidence
Act would apply to the facts ofthe case.
A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that these submissions have not been made before thetrial court when it dismissed the application ofthe petitioner videimpugned order dated 14.05.2016.Itis appropriatethatthe
CM(M)686/2016&687/2016 page2of3 petitioner approaches the trial court with an appropriate review application bringing out these submissions. Giving liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate review application before the trial court to urge these contentions,the present petitions stand disposed of. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek waiver ofthe costs before the trial court.
In case the petitioner moves any such review application within two weeks from today, the trial court is requested to consider the same as per law.
The petitions stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH,J JULY 20,2016 rb
2016:DHC:8622 under Section 151 CPCfor adducing additional documents was dismissed.
The petitioner wanted to place on record certified copy ofdeposition ofwitnesses which were adduced in the civil suittitled asMrs.ChameliDevi vs. Rattan Singh. It was urged that the deposition ofthe witnesses which was adduced in the said suit be taken on the presentjudicial file and read as evidence for deciding the present application. The trial court noted that evidence in other suit which is between some other parties cannotbe read as evidence in any other suit. The application was dismissed with costs of
Rs.2,000/- as it wassaidto be moved to linger onthe presentsuit.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the proviso to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act to contend that if the previous proceedings whose documents are sought to be filed was between the same parties or between their representatives in interest, Section 33 would be applicable. He submits that in the earlier suit filed by the petitioner, the father ofthe respondent was the defendant whereas here the son has moved the present petition. He relies uponjudgment ofthe privy council in the ease ofKrishnayya Surya Rao Bahadur Garu & Anr. vs.
VenkataKuniaraMahipathiSuryaRaoBahadur Garu,Rajah ofPittapur, AIR 1933 Privy Council2012 to contend that Section 33 ofthe Evidence
Act would apply to the facts ofthe case.
A perusal ofthe impugned order shows that these submissions have not been made before thetrial court when it dismissed the application ofthe petitioner videimpugned order dated 14.05.2016.Itis appropriatethatthe
CM(M)686/2016&687/2016 page2of3 petitioner approaches the trial court with an appropriate review application bringing out these submissions. Giving liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate review application before the trial court to urge these contentions,the present petitions stand disposed of. The petitioner is also at liberty to seek waiver ofthe costs before the trial court.
In case the petitioner moves any such review application within two weeks from today, the trial court is requested to consider the same as per law.
The petitions stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH,J JULY 20,2016 rb
CM(M)686/2016& 687/2016 page3of3
JUDGMENT