Delhi High Court
Tarun Nagpal vs M/S Auto Incline & Anr. on 17 October, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.10.2019
+ C.R.P. 86/2018
TARUN NAGPAL ..... Petitioner
versus
M/S AUTO INCLINE & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumit Jidani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Maninder Jeet Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.01.2018, whereby, the
application of the petitioner under Order 18 seeking recall of PW1 has
been dismissed.
2. Petitioner had filed the subject suit for recovery of money.
PW1 - petitioner was under cross-examination and the matter was
adjourned to 22.12.2016. On 22.12.2016, petitioner was present in
Court at 10 am, when the matter was called and informed the Court
that his counsel had gone to the High Court and could not reach the
Court before 11 am. The Court granted a pass over to the petitioner
till 10:30 am with a direction to contact his lawyer and apprise the
Court the possibility of his counsel coming earlier. The matter was
once again called at 10:45 am when the petitioner was not present and
then it was deferred to 11 am. Thereafter it was called at 11 am and
then deferred to 11:15 am. At 11:20 am, the Court noticed that none
had appeared for the petitioner despite the matter being called several
times. The right of the petitioner to cross-examine was closed and his
testimony was struck off.
3. Order sheet of 22.12.2016 notes another entry at 11:25 am
wherein the presence of the counsel as well as the petitioner is noted.
It records that the petitioner had informed the Court that he was
waiting for his counsel at gate No.1 of the Court Premises and as such
could not appear.
4. Thereafter, petitioner filed the subject application under Order
18 seeking recall of PW1 for examination.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner
in fact is seeking recall of order dated 22.12.2016 and has not filed
any application seeking review/recall of order dated 22.12.2016. He
further contends that even before this Court there is no challenge to
order dated 22.12.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though he has
raised these objections, however, without prejudice, he has no
objection in case the order dated 22.12.2016 and impugned order
dated 16.01.2018 are set aside with a direction that the petitioner
should be diligent in prosecuting the petition.
7. In view of the above, order dated 16.01.2018 and order dated
22.12.2016, insofar as it closes the cross-examination of PW1 and
strikes off his evidence, are set aside subject to payment of costs of
Rs. 3,000/-.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assures that petitioner shall
not seek any adjournment on any ground for deposition of PW1 -
petitioner.
9. Trial Court shall fix the matter for the remaining cross-
examination of PW1 - petitioner. The Trial Court is further directed
to expedite the proceedings.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 17, 2019
st
