Delhi High Court
Sh. Ganga Mahesh Katihar vs Smt. Sudarshan Khanna & Ors. on 7 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No. 988/2014 & C.M.Nos.18114/2014 (Exemption),
18115/2014 (Stay)
% 07th November, 2014
SH. GANGA MAHESH KATIHAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.J.S.Lamba with Mr.Ahmad
Shahrooz, Advocates.
versus
SMT. SUDARSHAN KHANNA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.1 in the subject suit for
possession pending before the trial court, impugns the order of the trial court
dated 10.9.2014 by which the trial court has closed the right of the
petitioner/defendant no.1 to lead evidence.
2. At the outset, I must mention that the petitioner/defendant no.1 for some
reason, and possibly not a bonafide one, has not filed before this Court the
pleadings in the suit or the issues framed in the suit for possession. In my
opinion, these pleadings and issues framed were necessary to have a larger
picture with respect to the case and the issue in question. From the sketchy list
CM(M) No.988/2014 page 1 of 3
of dates and the averments made in the petition, however, it is found out that
the petitioner/defendant no.1 was the son-in-law of respondent no.1
herein/plaintiff in the suit, as the petitioner/defendant no.1 had married the
daughter of respondent no.1/plaintiff, one Smt. Poonam. Smt. Poonam had due
to matrimonial disputes left the petitioner/defendant no.1 and started residing
with her mother i.e the respondent no.1/ plaintiff in the suit at Bhopal and after
filing a divorce case against the petitioner got a divorce decree against the
petitioner/defendant no.1 from the courts at Bhopal.
3. The petitioner/defendant no.1 alleges and claims that Smt. Shanti Devi,
mother of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, had executed a Will and General Power
of Attorney dated 14.8.1985 in his favour bequeathing to him and giving rights
to him in the suit property which is a small area of 25 sq. yds. being property
no.B-2/277, JJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27. The
petitioner/defendant no.1 accordingly had contested the suit for possession filed
against him by the daughter of Smt. Shanti Devi and his mother-in-law ie
respondent no.1/plaintiff.
4. Reference to the order sheets of the trial court filed show that since
13.8.2012, though certain adjournments were jointly taken by both the parties
including for compromise, the petitioner/defendant no.1 has had around five
opportunities to complete evidence, but in spite of a last opportunity granted
CM(M) No.988/2014 page 2 of 3
subject to payment of costs, the petitioner/defendant no.1 still failed to
complete his evidence. Obviously, the petitioner/defendant no.1 is deliberately
and unnecessarily delaying the suit for possession filed against him. Ordinarily
about three opportunities to lead evidence are sufficient but the petitioner got as
many as five opportunities.
5. In my opinion, five opportunities granted to the petitioner/defendant no.1
to lead evidence cannot in any manner be said to be less for a further liberal
approach to be adopted by this Court in the facts of the present suit for
possession filed against the petitioner/defendant no.1. The dates which were
fixed for the petitioner's/defendant no.1's evidence and when the
petitioner/defendant no.1 did not lead evidence are 27.8.2013, 07.10.2013,
05.5.2014, 24.7.2014 and 10.9.2014, the last date being when the evidence of
the petitioner/defendant was closed.
6. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 07, 2014
KA
CM(M) No.988/2014 page 3 of 3
