Delhi High Court
Sunil Kohli vs Anil Kohli & Ors. on 19 July, 2018
$~1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 13/2018 & CM Nos.2804/2018 & 28273/2018
% Date of decision : 19th July, 2018
SUNIL KOHLI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. V.K. Tandon and
Ms. Mamta Tandon, Adv.
versus
ANIL KOHLI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Raman Gandhi, Adv.
Ms. Nikita Salwan, Adv. for R-
3/DSIIDC
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FAO(OS) 13/2018
1. The appellant challenges the order dated 15 th November, 2017
passed by the learned Single Judge allowing IA No. 4941/2017 (under
Order VI Rule 14, 15 and 16 r/w Section 151 of the CPC) which was
filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein in CS(OS) 306/2016 praying
for the written statement of the defendant no.2(appellant before us) to
be taken off the record.
2. The plaintiff filed IA No. 4941/2017contending that he had
arrayed Sunil Kohli S/o Late Sh. P.C. Kohli as defendant no.2;
however the affidavit in support of the written statement filed on 31 st
August, 2016 by defendant no.2 had been sworn by "Suunil Kohli"
which signatures did not resemble the signatures of the defendant
no.2.
3. The impugned order records that on the previous date of
hearing, the appellant/defendant no.2 had himself appeared before the
court and stated that he had changed his signatures.
4. On the 15th of November, 2017 as well, the defendant
no.2/appellant was personally present with his counsel in court and he
was duly identified before the court by the learned counsel. On this
date as well, the defendant no.2 had informed the court that he had
changed his name from Sunil Kohli to Suunil Kohli on 23 rd August,
2016 for which he had issued a proclamation.
5. The appellant had further informed the learned Single Judge
that after changing his name, he had changed his signatures as well.
The appellant had fully explained that he had signed the affidavit
attached with the written statement as per his new signatures.
6. Despite the defendant no.2/appellant standing by the fact that
the written statement on his behalf on record had actually been signed
by him, the private respondent/plaintiff in the suit still pressed his
application placing reliance on an application filed by defendant
no.2/appellant in Civil Suit No. 20090/2016 pending in the District
Courts. An affidavit sworn on 30th May, 2017 supporting this
application was placed before the court wherein the signatures of the
appellant/defendant no.2 were totally different. Reliance was also
placed by the plaintiff on a reply filed by the appellant to an
application filed by defendant nos. 3 and 4 in CS(OS) 2848/2013. An
accompanying affidavit sworn on 17th August, 2017 which
accompanied the reply was placed before the court to show that the
signatures thereon did not tally with the signatures of the defendant on
the written statement. On these assertions, the learned Single Judge
rejected the assertions of the defendant no.2 that despite having
changed his name and signatures, he still continue to sign as per the
old signatures in other pleadings and therefore rejected the explanation
of the plaintiff/appellant.
7. In our view, the learned Single Judge has erred in failing to note
that the defendant no.2 has himself appeared before the court and
accepted that the written statement on record had been signed and
verified by him and accompanied by his affidavit. The defendant no.2
was standing by his defence. This was not a case where the defendant
no.2 had appeared in court and said that somebody else had affixed his
signatures. Merely because there was variation in the signatures
affixed by the defendant no.2 at different places was no reason to
direct that the written statement be taken on record. So long as the
defendant no.2 was confirming and standing by the same, it was
reason enough to reject the application of the plaintiff.
8. This was also not a case of forgery where the defendant no.2
had forged the signatures of some other party on any court pleadings.
For all these reasons, we find substance in the challenge laid by
the appellant.
9. The order dated 15th November, 2017 on IA No. 4941/2017 is
hereby set aside and quashed.
10. It is directed that as a result, the written statement filed by
defendant no.2 shall be kept on record.
It shall be open for the applicant to seek relief in an appropriate
remedy.
CM No. 2804/2018 (stay)
11. In view of the orders passed in the appeal, the application does
not survive for consideration and is dismissed.
CM No.28273/2018
12. The application seeking the relief prayed is not maintainable in
the present proceedings. The same is dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 19, 2018/kr
