Durga Prasad Jain vs The New Rajdhani Chbs Ltd
2012 Latest Caselaw 2619 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment:20.04.2012.

+     CM(M) 439/2012 & CM Nos. 6920-21/2012

      DURGA PRASAD JAIN                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv.
               versus
      THE NEW RAJDHANI CHBS LTD           ..... Respondent
                      Through Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned order is dated 03.04.2012. The application filed by the

plaintiff/petitioner seeking a prayer to summon certain witnesses on

behalf of the plaintiff had been declined. Admittedly this application had

been filed at the time of hearing of final arguments. The plaintiff has

fairly conceded that the witnesses whom he proposes to summon and

details of which find mention at page 16 of the paper book were all

witnesses which he could have summoned at the time when the

petitioner evidence was closed but even on a specific query put to him,

he has no answer as to why they were not summoned at that stage. His

vehement submission is that on 12.01.2010 the application seeking

summoning of the aforenoted witnesses had been withdrawn by him as

the Court had noted that this application is not required at the said stage

and the matter was thereafter fixed for the evidence of the defendant.

From this order dated 12.01.2010, it is clear that the petitioner/plaintiff

had given up his right to call these witnesses and that is why he had

withdraw the application seeking permission of the Court to summon

the witnesses; the matter was accordingly listed for the defendant

evidence. Defendant evidence now stands closed. Matter was fixed for

final arguments at the time when the present application was filed. Stage

of summoning of the witnesses was long since over. No justifiable

explanation has been rendered by the plaintiff as to why and in what

circumstances these witnesses are now required to be summoned when

on an earlier date he has already given up his right to summon these

witnesses by withdrawing the aforenoted application on 12.01.2010.

This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court and wastage of its

precious time. Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL      20, 2012
A