Full Text
Translation output
$-41,44 to 46 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M)418/2016 &C.M.NO.15984/2016 & C.M.No.15983/2016
S TARJIT SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Asutosh Lohia, Ms.Saumya Kumar and Mr. T.S. Gambhir,Advs.
CM(M)418/2016 &C.M.NO.15984/2016 & C.M.No.15983/2016
S TARJIT SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Asutosh Lohia, Ms.Saumya Kumar and Mr. T.S. Gambhir,Advs.
VERSUS
M/S POPULAR SALES PVT LTD & ORS Respondents
Through Nemo.
Through Nemo.
CM(M)421/2016,C.M.No.16066/2016(stay)& C.M.
No.16067/2016
Through Mr.Asutosh Lohia,Ms.Saumya Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir, Advs.
No.16067/2016
Through Mr.Asutosh Lohia,Ms.Saumya Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir, Advs.
VERSUS
M/S SAVILLE ROW COLLECTIONS PVT LTD & ORS
CM(M)422/2016,C.M.No.16069/2016(stay)& C.M.
No.16070/2016(Exemption)
Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir, Advs.
No.16070/2016(Exemption)
Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir, Advs.
VERSUS
M/S JAINSONS WESTEND PVT LTD & ORS CM(M)I\os.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page 1 of4
2016:DHC:8618 ly
2016:DHC:8618 ly
CM(M)423/2016,C.M.No.16104/2016(stay)& C.M.
No.16105/2016(Exemption)
Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir,Advs.
No.16105/2016(Exemption)
Kumar and Mr.T.S. Gambhir,Advs.
VERSUS
M/S JAINSONS COLLECTIONS PVT LTD & ORS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
02.05.2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Trial
Court in its order dated 05.03.2016 wherein the plaintiff at the conclusion ofthe trial and at the stage offinal arguments had moved an application under Section 151 ofthe CPC wherein he had sought a prayer seeking production of a handwriting expert to get the aforentoed two power of attorneys examined; these two powers of attorney executed by the parties and this had only come to the notice ofthe plaintiffnow.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for cancellation ofa sale deed which has been filed by the plaintiff. Parties had led their respective evidence. It was at the stage of final argument that the present application came to be filed. This application was filed on
03.12.2015 under Sections 45,56 & 57 ofthe Evidence Act.Para 3 is relevant. Attention has been drawn to the same. It is stated that during the course ofgeneral preparation ofthe matter,the counsel for the
CM(M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page2of4 plaintiffhas made a chance discovery ofcertain relevant and germane facts particularly relating to the irrevocable powers of attorney executed between the parties. It had been discovered by the plaintiff that there are two contradictory sets of irrevocable power ofattorney one of which was on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- denomination and another on a stamps paper ofRs.lO denomination. There appeared to be a controversy and accordingly it was required that the aforenoted two power of attorneys be examined and sent for a scientific examination with regard to the genuineness ofthe documents.
Reply had been filed to the aforenoted application. It was prayed that the application be dismissed having been filed belatedly.
This Court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court suffers from no infirmity. The application has been filed after the evidence has been led by the respective parties and almost at the conclusion ofthe final arguments. A perusal ofthe application shows that this application is wholly lackadaisical and appears to have been filed only to delay the proceedings. No date has been mentioned when chance discovery ofthis fact was made; as to how it had come to the notice of the plaintiff has not been explained. This is relevant. The application has been filed on 03.12.2015. How and when these facts came to the notice ofthe plaintiff has not been answered. It was for the plaintiff in the course of his evidence to have disputed these documents and definitely not at the stage offinal arguments.
This Court is ofthe view that at this belated stage, plaintiff is not only trying to gain time but appears to be filling in some kind ofa
CM(M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page3of4 loophole which appears to have come in his case. Such a belated prayer cannot be permitted and that too minus and dehors the relevant dates and time having been disclosed as to when and how this had come to the knowhow ofthe petitioner. The suit is ofthe year 2005.
10 years later such a plea cannot be taken. It necessarily prejudices the case ofthe defendants. Moreover the defendants in their evidence have proved five sets of powers of attorneys of which one is on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- denomination and the another one has been executed on a stamp paper ofRs.lO/- denomination. The witnesses of the defendants on this point have also been cross-examined.
The impugned order, in this background, suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit, pismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR,J MAY 02,2016 A CM{M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page4of4
02.05.2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Trial
Court in its order dated 05.03.2016 wherein the plaintiff at the conclusion ofthe trial and at the stage offinal arguments had moved an application under Section 151 ofthe CPC wherein he had sought a prayer seeking production of a handwriting expert to get the aforentoed two power of attorneys examined; these two powers of attorney executed by the parties and this had only come to the notice ofthe plaintiffnow.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for cancellation ofa sale deed which has been filed by the plaintiff. Parties had led their respective evidence. It was at the stage of final argument that the present application came to be filed. This application was filed on
03.12.2015 under Sections 45,56 & 57 ofthe Evidence Act.Para 3 is relevant. Attention has been drawn to the same. It is stated that during the course ofgeneral preparation ofthe matter,the counsel for the
CM(M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page2of4 plaintiffhas made a chance discovery ofcertain relevant and germane facts particularly relating to the irrevocable powers of attorney executed between the parties. It had been discovered by the plaintiff that there are two contradictory sets of irrevocable power ofattorney one of which was on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- denomination and another on a stamps paper ofRs.lO denomination. There appeared to be a controversy and accordingly it was required that the aforenoted two power of attorneys be examined and sent for a scientific examination with regard to the genuineness ofthe documents.
Reply had been filed to the aforenoted application. It was prayed that the application be dismissed having been filed belatedly.
This Court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court suffers from no infirmity. The application has been filed after the evidence has been led by the respective parties and almost at the conclusion ofthe final arguments. A perusal ofthe application shows that this application is wholly lackadaisical and appears to have been filed only to delay the proceedings. No date has been mentioned when chance discovery ofthis fact was made; as to how it had come to the notice of the plaintiff has not been explained. This is relevant. The application has been filed on 03.12.2015. How and when these facts came to the notice ofthe plaintiff has not been answered. It was for the plaintiff in the course of his evidence to have disputed these documents and definitely not at the stage offinal arguments.
This Court is ofthe view that at this belated stage, plaintiff is not only trying to gain time but appears to be filling in some kind ofa
CM(M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page3of4 loophole which appears to have come in his case. Such a belated prayer cannot be permitted and that too minus and dehors the relevant dates and time having been disclosed as to when and how this had come to the knowhow ofthe petitioner. The suit is ofthe year 2005.
10 years later such a plea cannot be taken. It necessarily prejudices the case ofthe defendants. Moreover the defendants in their evidence have proved five sets of powers of attorneys of which one is on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- denomination and the another one has been executed on a stamp paper ofRs.lO/- denomination. The witnesses of the defendants on this point have also been cross-examined.
The impugned order, in this background, suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit, pismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR,J MAY 02,2016 A CM{M)Nos.418/2016,421/2016,422/2016& 423/2016 Page4of4
JUDGMENT