Shri Om Prakash vs Shri Madan Singh & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1847 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                          Date of Reserve: 25th March, 2010
                                                                Date of Order: 8th April, 2010

CM(M) No. 399 of 2010 & CM APPL 5500/2010 and 5501/2010.

%                                                                           08.04.2010

SHRI OM PRAKASH                                                ... Petitioner
                                            Through: Mr. Hari Shankar, Adv.

                 Versus


SHRI MADAN SINGH & ORS.                                              ... Respondents


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

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 07.01.2010

whereby the cross examination of PW-1 was closed.

2. The petitioner is a defendant before the Trial Court. The plaintiff had

produced three witnesses to prove his case, including PW-1. While PW-2 and

PW-3 were examined on 12th February, 2007, PW-1 was partly cross

examined on 12.09.2008. After part cross examination of PW-1, the matter

was adjourned for 24th October, 2008 as last opportunity for cross

examination. On 24th October, 2008, counsel for defendant was not present

and the case was adjourned to 12th December, 2008 with cost of Rs. 600/-

and the matter was fixed for 30th March, 2009. On 30th March, 2009, an

adjournment was sought by another defendant No. 3 and then the matter was

fixed for 4th May, 2009 for remaining cross examination of PW-1. Again on 4th

May, 2009, non appeared on behalf of defendant No. 3 for cross examination.

The opportunity to further cross examine the PW-1 was closed. Thereafter an

application was made for recalling PW-1 for further cross examination which

was dismissed by the impugned order.

3. I consider that there is no jurisdictional error in the order of the Trial

Court. The Trial Court was justified in closing the cross examination after the

defendant failed to avail the opportunities given for cross examination of PW1.

4. I find no infirmity in the order. The petition is hereby dismissed with

pending applications.

April 8, 2010                                             SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm