Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Solanki vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 9 December, 2019
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th December, 2019
+ CM(M) 1148/2019 & CM APPL. 34830/2019
RAKESH KUMAR SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.
versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate for R-
2. (M:9818582376)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr.
Sachin Nawani Advocates for R-4.
(M:9910770311)
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, SC for DDA with
Mr. Nazia Parveen, Advocate.
(M:9278693021)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J(Oral)
1. Ld. Counsels for the parties have been heard. It is submitted that
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are ex-parte before the Trial Court.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 1st April, 2019 by which the witnesses of the Petitioner/Defendant
No.6 were not permitted to be examined and the evidence of Petitioner was
closed by the Trial Court. The submission of ld. counsel for the Petitioner is
that on the earlier occasion, vide order dated 12th March, 2019 the same very
witnesses were permitted to be summoned by the Petitioner and despite the
witness coming in the Court, since the record was not brought by the
witness, who sought an adjournment to produce the record, the evidence has
been closed on the ground that the list of witnesses was not filed by the
Petitioner.
3. There is no doubt that parties have to file list of witnesses prior to the
commencement of the Plaintiff's evidence as held in Zile Singh v. Santosh
@ Santra & Ors., [CM(M) 1296/2018, decided on 6th November, 2019].
However, the practice of filing of list of witnesses prior to commencement
of evidence was not being followed uniformly before the trial courts. Once
the witness was present before the Court, the Trial Court ought not to have
turned back the said witness.
4. Moreover, the Petitioner wishes to produce the official from the Sub
Registrar's office to show that the Respondent owns two other flats and a
wrong statement has been made by the Respondent to the DDA. Without
going into the details as to why the Petitioner wishes to summon the official
from the Sub-Registrar's office, it is sufficient to hold that once the official
was present before the Court, the Trial Court ought to have recorded his
statement and permitted the production of the record in relation to the
properties which the Petitioner wanted to prove that the Respondents own.
Summoning of witnesses, especially official witnesses and attendance of
witnesses in court proceedings is a cumbersome process and once witnesses
are present, trial courts ought to record their statements and not turn them
back.
5. Under these circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioner be given
one last opportunity to produce the LDC from the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Kapashera, to produce the relevant records on the date fixed by
the ld. Trial Court. Since the list of witnesses was not filed, the permissions
granted today, shall be subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the
Respondents. On the said date, the Petitioner shall ensure that the official
and the record therewith is produced. No further opportunity shall be
granted to the Petitioner. Petition and all pending applications are disposed
of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 09, 2019
dj
