Delhi High Court
Kew Precisions Parts Pvt. Ltd. vs Swaroop Lal Adlakha on 21 October, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 21.10.2011
+ CM(M) No. 1234/2011 and CM No. 19495/2011 (stay)
KEW PRECISIONS PARTS PVT. LTD. ........... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocate.
Versus
SWAROOP LAL ADLAKHA ..........Respondent
Through: None.
+ CM(M) No. 1236/2011 and CM No. 19523/2011 (stay)
KEW PRECISIONS PARTS PVT. LTD. ...........Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vivek Ojha, Advocate.
Versus
Sadhya Adlakha & Ors. ..........Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM No. 19496/2011(exemption) in CM(M) No. 1234/2011
CM No. 19524/2011(exemption) in CM(M) No. 1236/2011
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No. 1234/2011 and CM No. 19495/2011 (stay)
CM(M) No. 1236/2011 and CM No. 19523/2011 (stay)
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
16.07.2011 vide which the application filed by the defendant
seeking a waiver of cost had been dismissed; on the same date
evidence of the defendant also stood closed. Court had recorded
that 20 adjournments for the purpose of defendant
evidence had already been granted to the defendant to produce
his witness; even on the date when the impugned order was
passed no witness of the defendant was present. Petitioner is
aggrieved by the said order; it is an admitted position that plaintiff
evidence was closed on 26.07.2010; the witness of the defendant
who had to come into the witness box had died in the intervening
period. Court was also on leave on 23.02.2011; on 28.04.2011 last
opportunity had been granted to the defendant to lead his
evidence; the defendant himself also very keen to lead his
evidence and he had moved an application seeking pre-ponement
of the date. Contention is that there is only witness who is to
examine on behalf of the defendant; a valuable right would be lost
to the defendant in case he is not permitted to lead his evidence;
affidavit of the said witness is in fact already on record. In view of
the submissions made which are borne out from the record, in the
interest of justice, impugned order is set aside; one last
opportunity is granted to the defendant to produce his witness in
defence; it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
granted for the said purpose. The next date fixed before the Trial
Court is in 28.11.2011. The counsel for the petitioner undertakes
to inform the plaintiff about the case in order that the counsel for
the plaintiff is ready for the examination of the witness of the
defendant on the said date; Trial Court shall ensure that no
unnecessary adjournment shall be granted for the said purpose.
Defendant evidence shall be concluded on the date already fixed
before the Trial Court. This order is passed subject to payment of
Rs.5,000 as cost.
Petition is disposed of.
Copy of the order be give dasti to the counsel for the
petitioner.
Copy of the order also be sent to the Trial Court for
necessary intimation.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
OCTOBER 21, 2011
rb
