Delhi High Court
Ajay Pall vs Chanda Pall on 16 October, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ REVIEW PETITION 271/2015 in CM(M) 416/2012
Decided on: 16th October, 2015
AJAY PALL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kuber Boddh, Advocate &
Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate along
with Petitioner in person.
versus
CHANDA PALL ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manvati, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an application for review of the order dated 20.04.2015.
2. I have heard Mr. K.T.S. Tuli, the learned senior counsel for the
applicant/petitioner. I have also heard the learned counsel for the
respondent and have gone through the record.
3. The learned senior counsel Mr. Tulsi has contended that in the
order dated 20.04.2015 passed by this Court while disposing of the
CM (M) 416/2012 it has been observed by this Court in para 19 as
under:-
"19. ...... So far as the reports of experts are
concerned, they are at best the guiding principles and
there is no dearth of methods of procuring these
reports.........."
4. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is
that the observations made by this Court with regard to report
purported to have been given by Dr. Deepak Gupta gives an
impression as if the report which has been given by Dr. Deepak
Gupta, the Psychiatrist with regard to the examination of the party
in the instant case is a procured report and, therefore, it has a
tendency of prejudicing the disposal of the guardianship petition by
the learned trial Court.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the contention
of the learned senior counsel.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
senior counsel as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I
have also gone through the observations passed by this Court.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that this Court had observed that
there is no dearth of methods of procuring these reports of experts.
In the instant case the report was given by the medical expert Dr.
Deepak Gupta, but this was never the intention of this Court to pass
an observation that the report which has been furnished by Dr.
Deepak Gupta is a procured one because the Court was conscious
of the fact that Dr. Deepak Gupta was appointed by the Division
Bench of this Court out of the names which were given by Dr.
Sarin, who was an expert in the matter. I, therefore, feel that this
was neither the intention nor the purpose of passing the
observations to prejudice the interest of any party. However, in
order to allay the affairs of either of the parties this Court had
specifically observed towards the end of the order in para 23 that
the learned trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the main matter
under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as
expeditiously as possible without being influenced in any manner
by any of the observations made in the present matter.
8. These overriding observations passed by the Court reinforced the
fact that the Court need not be influenced in any manner
whatsoever with those lines or words which this Court has passed
in Para 19 of the order dated 20.04.2015.
9. Suffice it would be here to reiterate the same as what has been
stated in para 23 of the order dated 20.04.2015, no further orders
are needed to be passed on the review petition.
10. Accordingly, the review petition is treated to have been disposed
of.
11. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2015
vk
