Delhi High Court
Priyanka Khanna vs The State & Anr. on 8 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.319 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.4373-4374 of 2010
% 08.04.2010
PRIYANKA KHANNA ......Petitioner
Through: In person.
Versus
THE STATE & ANR. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon & Mr. M.K. Rath,
Advocates.
Date of Reserve: 9th March, 2010
Date of Order: 8th April, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21st January, 2010
whereby an application of the petitioner to summon income-tax record for assessment
years 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 of the respondent and to summon passport file maintained
by Passport Office for issuance of passports to Ms. Akanksh Khanna and Mr. Amit
Khanna under Tatkaal Scheme, was rejected.
2. The petitioner moved application for summoning above records stating that record
was needed for cross-examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had purchased a property
No.31/60, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 27th August, 2004 in his name whereas the
petitioner got married to the brother of plaintiff Mr. Amit Khanna on 2nd February, 2005.
As a dispute arose between the petitioner and her husband, she wanted to assert a right
over her husband's brother's property. The respondent therefore filed a suit for perpetual
injunction against the petitioner seeking injunction that she should not interfere with
peaceful possession, enjoyment of property No.31/60, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi by
him. In this suit, the petitioner (defendant before trial court) took a stand that the property
was a joint family property. Her husband and she therefore, also had a right in the
property. She wanted to summon passport file to show that when renewal of passports
was applied under Tatkaal Scheme, Mr. Anil Khanna had claimed that he was living in
Kalkaji. She wanted to summon income-tax returns of Mr. Amit Khanna for all the years
to show what was his income.
3. A witness can be cross-examined only on the pleadings and issues. He cannot be
cross-examined on those subjects which are not germane to deciding the lis between the
parties. Therefore, the court cannot allow summoning of such record which cannot help
in adjudication of the issues and which do not throw light on the subject matter or which
are summoned by a party just to prolong the proceedings. Merely giving an address of
residence in a passport application cannot prove whether a property was a joint family
property or individual property. The trial court, therefore, rightly disallowed summoning
of passport files from the passport office. Similarly, summoning of income-tax returns of
plaintiff for all the years from Commissioner, Income-Tax would only prove what was
the taxable income of the plaintiff, as reflected in income-tax returns. That would not
prove the property to be an HUF property or a joint family property or individual
property.
4. The trial court did not allow calling of above records observing that the case was
pending at the stage of plaintiff's evidence since 22nd December, 2007 and two years had
already passed but the cross-examination of PW-1 has not been concluded. The court had
given last and final opportunity to defendant to conclude cross-examination on 18th
December, 2009 and instead of concluding cross-examination, the defendant came up
with another application for summoning record.
5. I consider that the trial court rightly disallowed the application. I find no merits in
this petition and the petition is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
APRIL 8, 2010
'AA'
