Delhi High Court
Ms. Shikha Mishra & Anr vs S Krishna Murthy on 29 April, 2013
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:29.04.2013
+ CM(M) 451/2013
MS SHIKHA MISHRA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Attin Shankar Rastori, Adv.
versus
S KRISHNAMURTHY ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Swati, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM No. 6705/2013 (Exemption)
1 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Cav. No. 384/2013
2 Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance. Caveat stands
discharged.
CM(M) 451/2013
3 The petitioners are aggrieved by the findings returned in the
impugned order dated 21.03.2013 vide which their right to cross-
examine PW-1 stood closed. Submission is that the petitioners have
applied for the original documents which are sought to be confronted to
PW-1 and the next date given by the Court is 15.05.2013; it was only in
these circumstances that PW-1 could not be cross-examined as the
original documents were not available.
4 Record shows that the two suits had been filed. The petitioners
had filed a suit for specific performance in the High Court. The
respondent had filed a suit for possession which is the present suit
pending in the trial Court. The case of the petitioners is that they had
purchased this property from the respondent vide agreement to sell dated
19.04.1992 as also the other documents; these documents had been filed
by them along with the plaint when their suit was filed in the High
Court. Submission being that the original documents have been filed and
the certified copies already available with the petitioners had to be filed
in trial Court in order to obtain the original documents as per the
procedure of the Court. Submission being that the Registrar has fixed
the matter for 15.03.2013 for return of the original documents. This has
led to delay in cross-examination of PW-1.
5 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this
prayer. His submission is that on one pretext or the other, the matter is
being delayed. PW-1 is a senior citizen aged 83 years. Submission being
that he has already been called several dates for his cross-examination
(as is noted in the ordersheets which had been placed on record before
this Court); this submission is largely substantiated from the record.
6 Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the controversy
any further, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent that the certified copy of the aforenoted documents including
the agreement to sell dated 19.04.1992 are already a part of the trial
court record, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioners to cross-
examine PW-1. Next date fixed in the trial Court is 01.05.2013. It
may not be possible for PW-1 to come from Bangalore by that date.
Accordingly the trial Court shall adjourn the matter to 20.05.2013 for
the cross-examination of PW-1 who may be confronted with the
certified copies of the documents which are already available on the trial
court record. Needless to state that if by that time, the original
documents are obtained by the petitioners, they may confront the
witness with the original set of documents. The cost of travel of PW-1
who has to be accompanied necessarily by an attendant, keeping in view
his advanced age, is estimated at Rs.30,000/- which shall be borne by
the petitioners. This amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid in advance to
the respondent within two weeks. PW-1 will accordingly be present for
his cross-examination on 20.05.2013.
7 With these directions, petition stands disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
APRIL 29, 2013
A
