Delhi High Court
Jsg Hospitality & Ors. vs Mrs. Pardamen Kaur Kohli & Ors. on 24 August, 2020
$~23
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.08.2020
+ CM(M) 384/2020 & CM APPL.15554/2020
JSG HOSPITALITY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
MRS. PARDAMEN KAUR KOHLI & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel, North DMC.
Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the parties inform that the premises was de-
sealed by the officers of North MCD, however, as there were no
useable articles lying inside the premises, petitioner did not remove
any article and left the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions submits
that the vacant possession of the said premises has been handed over
to the respondents on 17.08.2020 and they have no claim with regard
to the tenanted premises and their tenancy rights be deemed to have
been surrendered.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.08.2020 18:53:04 CM(M) 384/2020 Page 1
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the
Suit of the respondent also seeks to recover arrears of rent and mesne
profits. He further submits that there is substantial electricity and
water bill due which has not been paid by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have
a counter claim in the suit.
6. Petitioners impugn order dated 23.01.2020 whereby the
application of the petitioner seeking recall of PW.1 for further cross
examination was dismissed.
7. The issues were framed in the suit on 19.01.2019. Affidavit by
way of evidence of PW - 1 was tendered on 07.02.2019. Petitioner
sought an adjournment for conducting cross examination, which was
granted subject to costs. Thereafter cross examination was conducted
on 06.05.2019. Thereafter it was deferred to 06.07.2020, when an
adjournment was sought on the ground that there was a change in
counsel. The Trial Court refused to accept the explanation and closed
the right of further cross examination.
8. It is observed that the witness was cross examined on
06.05.2019 when the case was adjourned to 06.07.2019 on which date
an adjournment was sought on the ground of change of counsel. Court
has also noticed that the costs imposed by order dated 07.02.2019
have not been paid. It is pointed out that the cost already stands paid.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
orders dated 06.07.2019 and 23.01.2020 are set aside. One
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.08.2020 18:53:04 CM(M) 384/2020 Page 2
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross examine PW - 1.
10. Since the evidence of the respondent (plaintiff) was also closed
by learned counsel, in view of the closure of cross examination, the
respondent (plaintiff) would be at liberty to lead further evidence, if so
desired by the respondent (plaintiff).
11. List before the trial Court for directions/fixing an appropriate
date for cross examination on 30.09.2020.
12. It would be open to the respondent to seek amendment of the
plaint and to include the relief with regard to arrears of water and
electricity charges.
13. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim or the counter claim of the
petitioner.
14. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
15. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
AUGUST 24, 2020
rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.08.2020 18:53:04 CM(M) 384/2020 Page 3
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
