Delhi High Court
Amit Bansal vs Sudha Gupta & Anr. on 22 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005835
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2022
+ CM(M) 1439/2022 and CM APP No. 55222/2022
AMIT BANSAL ..... Petitioner
versus
SUDHA GUPTA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. By way of the present petition, Petitioner challenges the order
dated 21.05.2007 and 03.09.2012. By virtue of order dated 21.05.2007,
Joint Registrar had noted the statement of the counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner that he would not be cross-examining any of the
witness of the Plaintiff on the premise that it was a dispute between the
Respondent/Plaintiff herein and Defendant No.1 in the suit.
2. The other order, which is challenged by the Petitioner, is dated
03.09.2012 whereby the evidence of the Petitioner was treated as closed
on the ground that the Petitioner had not filed the affidavits as directed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
11:22:18
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005835
by the Court.
3. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner had filed
the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying that the evidence of the Petitioner be re-
opened and the Petitioner be permitted to lead his evidence and also
pray for cross-examining the witnesses of the Plaintiff as well.
4. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of the order dated
15.02.2018, learned Trial Court had, by detailed order dismissed the
application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel further
submits that the said dismissal was further challenged before this Court
in C.M.(M) 227/2018 and vide order dated 09.03.2018, this Court
granted liberty to seek review on the statement of the counsel for the
Petitioner. The dismissal of the review application, prayer of which was
sought vide order dated 09.03.2018 also apparently dismissed vide order
dated 18.08.2022. For ready reference, para 5 of the order dated
15.02.2018 is extracted hereunder :
"5. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that
evidence of plaintiff was closed on 25/04/2011 and
thereafter the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence
on 03/11/2011. Record further shows that thereafter
defendants were granted various opportunities including
last opportunity to file their affidavits by way of evidence
but to no avail and finally on 03/09/2012 the right of
defendants to lead evidence was closed. It is pertinent to
mention here that defendant no.2 had later on filed an
application for recalling of order dated 03/09/2012 and
vide order dated 07/03/2013 defendant no.2 was
permitted to lead his evidence. No such application was
filed by defendant no.1 at that time. The grievance of the
defendant no.1 in the said application is that his father
was handling the present matter till 2000 and after the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
11:22:18
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005835
death of his father, he did not get in touch with the
counsel Sh. D.R. Bhatia, Adv, And that only on
02/09/2017 while going through the old records, it came
to the knowledge of defendant no.1 about the case and he
had recollected that he had engaged Sh. D.R. Bhatia as
his counsel. Record shows that defendant no.1 is a party
to the suit since inception of the case and he had filed
written statement and it cannot be believed that he was
not aware of the proceedings all these years even if it is
believed that Defendant No.1 was not in touch with his
counsel then only it was Defendant No.1 who is
responsible for his negligence and he cannot claim the
reopening of the evidence at this stage. Defendant's
evidence was closed on 03.09.2012 and arguments have
already been head in the present and case is now at the
stage of order. I am of the opinion that the provisions of
Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC cannot be used by a party to a
suit to fill up the lacuna left, to my mind, the application
filed by the Defendant No.1 under Order 18 Rule 17 of
the CPC is absolutely devoid of any merits and the same
is hereby dismissed."
5. Learned counsel submits that this order also was challenged by
way of C.M. (M) 982/2022 before this Court. It is observed that in the
order dated 20.09.2022, the Petitioner sought to withdraw the petition
with liberty to advance arguments before the learned Trial Court, which
liberty was granted vide the said order.
6. None of the orders passed in the earlier rounds before this Court
were taken to the higher Courts and have become final and binding on
the petitioner.
7. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that in the
present petition, challenge to the impugned orders is in respect of the
well settled law that the concession given by a counsel would not bind
the parties and it should not interfere in the administration of justice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
11:22:18
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005835
Learned counsel refers to judgment of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in Purewal and Associates Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Punjab National
Bank and Ors., AIR 1992 HP 26 to buttress his aforesaid argument.
8. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently
opposes the petition and submits that the conduct as well as orders
passed earlier both by the Courts below as well as by this Court are
sought to be set at naught by way of the present petition.
9. That apart, Mr. Malhotra submits that after liberty was granted by
this Court in CM(M) 982/2022 vide order dated 20.09.2022, the
Petitioner had already addressed final arguments before the learned Trial
Court and to that extent, he is precluded from turning the clock back.
10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that the argument in respect of concessions by counsel may
not bind the parties may be true and correct to the extent of issue of law.
Surely, the concessions, to that extent by the counsel, would not bind the
party predicated on the doctrine that there is no estoppel against statute
or law.
11. However, in the present case, there is no such question of law or
issue of law based whereon the Petitioner was precluded from agitating
his rights.
12. This Court also observes that there is an insurmountable delay in
the Petitioner approaching this Court for the reliefs as sought in the
present petition. The orders passed by the learned Trial Court while
disposing of the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC as well as
the review application, are detailed and have scrutinized the conduct of
the Petitioner and arrived at a finding which cannot be said to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
11:22:18
Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005835
perverse or illegal or a procedure which is manifestly irregular seeking
interference by this Court.
13. It is informed that the learned Trial Court may soon pass the final
orders in the suit.
14. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
material irregularity or illegality committed by the Joint Registrar of this
Court while passing the impugned orders.
15. Petition and the application filed herewith are dismissed in limine
with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, within one week
and the proof thereof be filed before this Court under a proper index.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J .
DECEMBER 22, 2022
yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
11:22:18
