Dr. Tilak Raj Jaggi vs Smt. Priya Rani Jaggi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6614 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) No. 392/2014
%                                                     9th December, 2014

DR. TILAK RAJ JAGGI                                        ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, Adv.


                          VERSUS

SMT. PRIYA RANI JAGGI & ORS.                  ...... Respondents
                   Through:  Ms. Nandita Abrol, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the order of the trial court dated 05.10.2012 by which the trial court has

allowed the application of respondents/plaintiffs and summoned two

witnesses of the petitioner/defendant for cross examination with respect to

documents. The two witnesses are DW-4 Sh. Vijay Kumar Sakri and DW-6

Sh. Pratap Singh. A consequential order dated 13.02.2014 is also challenged.


2.    No doubt, the cross examination of DW-4 and DW-6 was closed after

sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents/plaintiffs, however,

it is conceded before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
CMM 392/2014                                                                  Page 1 of 3
 the respondents/plaintiffs have only closed their evidence in affirmative i.e.

rejoinder evidence in terms of the Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) still has to be led by the respondents/plaintiffs.

3.             Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs states that DW-4 and

DW-6 who have been recalled for their evidence, can be treated as witnesses

of the respondents/plaintiffs for the rejoinder evidence which has to be led.


4.             Therefore, the effect of the statement of counsel for the

respondents/plaintiffs would be that the impugned order will be treated not

for recalling DW-4 and DW-6 as witnesses of the petitioner/defendant, but

as witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs, and hence the trial court is

requested to make appropriate corrections in the statements of Sh.Vijay

Kumar (DW-4) and Sh. Pratap Singh (DW-6) now to be recorded that their

evidence will be as respondents'/plaintiffs' witnesses.


5.             Accordingly, though the counsel for the petitioner insisted that

the impugned order be set aside on the ground that the impugned order

allows to recall DW-4 and DW-6 but that aspect has already been addressed

above because the witnesses DW-4 and DW-6 will be the witnesses of

respondents/plaintiffs as stated by the counsel for respondents/plaintiffs, and

in which evidence the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to lead as
CMM 392/2014                                                                Page 2 of 3
 respondents/plaintiffs can always lead rejoinder evidence under Order XVIII

Rule 3 CPC with respect to the issues of which onus is on the

petitioner/defendant.

6.             In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is therefore dismissed.




DECEMBER 09, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

neelam