Dilip Kumar vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 6382 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 6382 Del
Judgement Date : 23 December, 2011

Delhi High Court

Dilip Kumar vs State & Anr on 23 December, 2011

Author: Suresh Kait

$~29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 4360/2011

%            Judgment delivered on: 23rd December, 2011


      DILIP KUMAR                                         ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr.Harish Pandey, Adv.

                     versus


      STATE & ANR                                     ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 19976/2011

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

+ CRL.M.C. 4360/2011

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by ld. Sr. Civil Judge-cum-MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi in C.C. No. 4987/1/2009, whereby application for summoning of witnesses has been declined and defence evidence is closed.

2. Ld. Counsel further submits that before the date of impugned order matter was listed on 13.09.2011 whereby due to non-availability of the counsel for the petitioner, adjournment granted subject to cost of Rs.200/-.

3. Ld. Counsel further submits that thereafter, on the next date, due to the reasons that the petitioner has not taken steps for filing the list of witnesses as directed by ld. Sr. Civil Judge-cum-MM for getting the summons issued against the witnesses, ld. Trial Judge has declined the application and closed the defence evidence.

4. Keeping the facts and circumstances into view, the order dated 16.11.2011 is set aside. One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to the cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited in favour of the 'Delhi Police Welfare Fund, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi' within one week from today. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.

5. I further made it clear that trial court shall not give unnecessary adjournment to the petitioner.

6. Crl. M.C. 4360/2011 is allowed on the above terms.

7. Since, main petition has been allowed, Crl. M.A. 19975/2011 (Stay) does not require further adjudication, which becomes infructuous and disposed of as such.

8. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

DECEMBER 23, 2011 jg