Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 27 July, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2020
+ CM(M) 392/2020
NARESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Mr. R.D. Chauhan with Mr. Arun K. Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.16491/2020 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 392/2020 & CM APPL.16490/2020 (stay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:27.07.2020 17:30:40
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for hearing
today.
4. Petitioner, by this petition, impugns order dated 24.01.2020,
whereby, application of the petitioner to lead evidence has been
dismissed.
5. Petitioner had filed the suit which was decreed in favour of the
petitioner. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the Appellate Court
decided to have demarcation done and accordingly, respondent was
given an opportunity to lead evidence and prove the demarcation.
After the respondent led their evidence and the witness was cross-
examined by the petitioner, petitioner moved the subject application
seeking opportunity to lead evidence which application has been
dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner has already cross-
examined the witness of the respondent.
6. In an adversarial system where one party leads evidence, the
other party not only has a right to cross-examine the witness but also
has a right to produce evidence in his favour, if the party so desires.
7. Merely because the petitioner has cross-examined the witness
of the respondent who has carried out the demarcation, does not
disentitle the petitioner to lead independent evidence to rebut the
demarcation report.
8. The Appellate court has clearly erred in declining the Petitioner
an opportunity to lead evidence solely on the ground that the
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:27.07.2020 17:30:40
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
petitioner has extensively cross-examined the witness of the
respondent.
9. In view of the above, impugned order dated 24.01.2020 is set
aside. Petitioner is given one opportunity to summon his witnesses
and documents in accordance with law. However, the evidence to be
brought by the petitioner shall be limited to rebut the evidence led by
the respondent in the appeal. Petitioner shall not be entitled to re-
summon Mr. Sushil Kumar Sikerwar, who was examined by the
respondent as AW-1.
10. Petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
JULY 27, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:27.07.2020 17:30:40
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
