Delhi High Court
Sh P K Jana & Ors. vs Neera Malik & Ors. on 31 August, 2022
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 177/2022 & CM APPL. 9554/2022
SH P K JANA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Praveen Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
NEERA MALIK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 31.08.2022
1. Despite the fact that all the respondents stand duly served,
Respondent 6 has not chosen to appear.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 were present on the last date of hearing.
They have also not chosen to appear, though we are at the fag end of
the day and it is now 05:00 p.m.
3. As the issue is short, I have heard Mr. Praveen Aggarwal,
learned Counsel for the petitioners and proceed to dispose of the
present matter.
4. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails order dated 23rd November 2021 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 209575/2016
(P.K. Jana & Ors Anr. Through LRs v. Neera Malik & Ors),
whereby the learned ADJ has closed the evidence of the petitioner, as
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:46:39
the Plaintiff 2(a) and the sole surviving plaintiff in the said suit.
5. Mr. Aggarwal points out that the plaintiff sought to lead the
evidence of four official witnesses. The witnesses whose evidence the
plaintiff sought to lead were the following:
"i) Clerk concerned of the DDA Land & Bldg. Deptt.,
Vikas Sadan, INA, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi -110023 with
copy of the payments received of lease money as regards to
M-38, C R Park, New Delhi -110019.
ii) Concerned Clerk of State Bank of India, Branch Vikas
Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023 with the copy of lease
money payments as per the details attached herewith as
regards to M-38, C R Park, New Delhi -110019
iii) Concerned Clerk of DVB presently BSES, Alaknanda
Zone, Alaknanda Market, New Delhi -110019 as regards to
application for connection of electric supply to M-38, C R
Park, New Delhi -110019, as per the details attached
herewith.
iv) SHO, C.R. PARK, New Delhi -110019, through
concerned police official with the copies of the complaint
made as regards to M-38, C R Park, New Delhi -110019, as
per the herewith."
6. The learned ADJ issued summons to the aforesaid four official
witnesses on 7th March 2020, for 26th March 2020.
7. It appears that, as the COVID-19 pandemic had made inroads
into the country by then, the learned ADJ advanced the date of hearing
to 21st March 2020 and adjourned the matter for recording of PE on 8 th
July 2020. As the petitioner was unaware of the passing of the order
dated 21st March 2020, the petitioner did not appear on 8th July 2020.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:46:39
8. After 19th September 2020, the proceedings continued to be
conducted through Video-Conferencing till the date of passing of the
impugned order dated 23rd November 2021 when, as per Mr.
Aggarwal's submission, the impugned order came to be passed.
9. The impugned order dated 23rd November 2021 reads thus:
"CS No. 9575/16
P.K. JANA ORS vs. NEERA MALIK ORS
23.11.2021
Present: Plaintiff no. 2(a) in person
None on behalf of D-1, D-2 and D-5
Shri A.K. Singh, ld. Counsel for D-3 and D-4
Shri Ajit Pratap Singh, ld. Counsel for D-6
Matter is fixed for P.E. However, adjournment sought
on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that witness is not
available today.
Heard.
A perusal of the file reveals that plaintiff has been
given ample opportunities to conclude PE however same not
been concluded till date. Moreover no witness is present
today. In view of the above facts, PE is hereby closed.
At this stage, an application moved on behalf of the
plaintiff for deleting name of plaintiff no. 2(b). Copy
supplied. The application will be considered after conclusion
of evidence.
Put up for D.E. on 06.01.2022.
(Geetanjali)
Additional District Judge-05
South-East District Saket Court
New Delhi/23.11.2021"
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:46:39
10. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Aggarwal submits that the learned
ADJ is not correct in observing that ample opportunities had been
granted to the petitioner to conclude PE. He submits that, in fact, no
effective hearing took place after summons were issued by the learned
ADJ on 7th March 2020, to the four witnesses whose evidence the
petitioner sought to lead.
11. The first date when normal proceeding resumed thereafter, was
23rd November 2021, and, on that date, PE was closed. The records
disclose that Mr. Aggarwal's submissions are correct.
12. A reply stands filed, to this petition, by Respondent 3. The
reply, too, does not traverse this factual position.
13. The learned ADJ was, therefore, not justified in closing the PE
on 23rd November 2021.
14. As such, the impugned order dated 23rd November 2021 is
quashed and set aside.
15. The learned ADJ is directed to issue fresh summons to the
aforesaid four witnesses, for a date to be fixed by her/him, so that their
evidence could be recorded.
16. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order
as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2022/dsn
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:02.09.2022
11:46:39
