Delhi High Court
Manav Narang & Anr vs Rajinder Lal Khitha on 29 November, 2019
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 29.11.2019
+ CM(M) 1636/2019 & CM APPL. 49526/2019
MANAV NARANG & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate.
versus
RAJINDER LAL KHITHA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Siddhartha Yadav, Ms. Ishita
Yadav and Mr. Deepak Kumar
Mishra, Advocates alongwith son of
respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the
learned MACT in Petition No: 370/18 seeking permission to recall and cross
examine Mr. Rajinder Lal-PW-1, who was duly cross-examined on
13.08.2019 by Mr. Umesh Gupta, Advocate. The order dated 13.08.2019
reads as under:
"PW Rajinder Lal has filed his evidence by way of
affidavit. He is examined, cross examined and discharged. It is
submitted by counsel for petitioner that he does not wish to
examine any other witness. Statement of counsel for petitioner
is recorded separately. Accordingly, PE stands closed.
Matter be now listed for RE on 30.09.2019. Subject to
taking steps, Rws be summoned for date fixed."
2. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle had sought recall of the
witness for his further cross-examination. The application in this regard was
dismissed on the ground that the said witness had already been duly cross-
examined.
3. The impugned order reads as under:-
"Application has been filed on behalf of
respondents seeking recall of PW-1 Rajinder Lal. It is
averred that on the last date of hearing, he deputed his
associate to appear In person.
The witness has been cross examined by Sh. Umesh
Gupta, Advocate on behalf of main counsel. Now the
application had been filed on the ground that on the last
date of hearing, petitioner has filed certain new
documents and his associate could not cross examine
PW-1 on these documents. He requests for allowing the
application for just decision of the case. He relied upon a
judgement titled K.K.Velusam,y(sic) Vs. N.Palanisamy in
Civil appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2011.
Heard. I have gone through the file.
Since, PW-1 was cross examined thoroughly on the
last date of hearing and counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent did not object to the documents filed by
petitioner PW-1,I do not find any merit in the application
and the same is dismissed.
At this stage, counsel for respondents submits that
he is unable to appear on 30.09.2019, the date fixed on
account of retirement of his father.
His request be considered on the date fixed."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross
examination was conducted by an associate counsel and not by the main
counsel who was busy in some other case, therefore, the due cross-
examination of the said witness could not be conducted.
5. The Court is unable to agree as to how Mr. Umesh Gupta cannot be
regarded as the main counsel because his vakalatnama is on record and he
has appeared as the counsel for the said petitioners throughout the hearing of
the case before the learned Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that indeed Mr. Umesh
Gupta is the counsel who has filed the written statement on behalf of the
respondents and had assisted the learned Tribunal on every occasion as
counsel for the said party.
7. In view of the above, the Court finds no reason to interfere in the
impugned order. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2019
AB
