Delhi High Court
Raghav Gupta vs Chandra Prakash Gupta (Since ... on 12 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005533
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.12.2022
+ CM(M) 1386/2022
RAGHAV GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. B.B. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Vijay Gupta and Mr. Aehal Gupta, Advocates.
Ms. Mansi Sharma, Advocate for Smt. Sneh
Lata Jain (LR).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 53645/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of
CM(M) 1386/2022, CM APPL. 53644/2022 (for stay)
3. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails
the order dated 22.11.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has directed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:59:35
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005533
the learned counsel to communicate to the plaintiff that he has to either
join the Court through VC or send an affidavit to that Court on the issue
that they have instructed the counsel to continue with the suit even after
executing the Relinquishment Deed, as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
learned Trial Court has overlooked the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of
CPC, 1908, whereby the communication between the counsel and the
client is sanctimonious and cannot be interfered by any other authority or
even a Court of law.
5. Mr. B.B. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent on advance notice draws attention of the Court to page 21 of
the paper book, which is extracted hereunder :-
"Initially it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that
Smt. Sushma Gupta had no power of attorney on behalf of LRs of
plaintiff to execute such a relinquishment deed.
Upon this, the court felt it appropriate to direct to present
the plaintiff before the court either through VC or in person.
Initially on behalf of the plaintiff, ld. Counsel stated that by
both the modes, plaintiff cannot appear and then the counsel for
plaintiff stated that the power of attorney in favour of the wife of
deceased plaintiff was genuine and she had genuinely executed
relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 but the said
relinquishment deed was a nullity in law and therefore, suit for
partition should proceed.
On being inquired firstly how this question can be decided
in suit for partition once plaintiffs had relinquished their shares
and is it the instruction of the plaintiff upon which the counsel is
continuing with the suit, no concrete answer has come forth. Thus,
the court now directs ld. Counsel for plaintiff to communicate to
the plaintiffs that they have to either join the court through VC or
send an affidavit to this court that they have instructed the counsel
to continue with the suit even after executing the relinquishment
deed as aforesaid.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:59:35
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005533
Put up for report on this point on 15.12.2022."
6. Based on the above, learned Senior Counsel submits that learned
Court after appreciating the fact situation as obtaining on that day, felt it
appropriate to examine the plaintiff, which power, in his submission, is
within the confines of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, learned
counsel for the petitioner possibly cannot have any objections to that.
7. Mr. S.K. Gupta, submits that his clients have not been responding to
his communications and would, therefore, seek four week's time to take
appropriate steps in that regard.
8. After having heard, learned counsel for both the parties this Court is
of the opinion that provisions under Order 3 Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 have not
at all been tinkered with by the learned Trial Court and it is only its
subjective satisfaction, which has arisen due to the peculiar situation, that
it wants to examine the plaintiff/ Raghav Gupta. The Trial Court under
Order 10 of the CPC, 1908, has powers which are wide enough to examine
the parties on any issue which arises during the course of the trial to
satisfy itself on the query so raised.
9. Surely, the counsels to the parties cannot have any objection
thereto, specially when the Court itself wants to examine the parties.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any justified reasons
to interfere with the order passed, except to direct the Trial Court to
consider the request made by Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner for grant of some time to get appropriate instructions from the
petitioner namely, Mr. Raghav Gupta.
11. The Trial Court may also consider keeping the impugned order
directing the petitioner to appear or join the Court through VC, in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:59:35
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005533
abeyance till the time Mr. Gupta is able to get positive communication
from the petitioner.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the petition along with pending
application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DECEMBER 12, 2022/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
15:59:35
