Delhi High Court
Smt Kumudni Aggarwal vs Smt Anjana Devi on 10 April, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2516
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2023
+ CM(M) 1145/2022 & CM APPL.46031/2022
SMT KUMUDNI AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
versus
SMT ANJANA DEVI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 06.08.2022 passed in CS
No. 529/2020 titled "Anjana Devi vs. Kumudni Aggarwal", whereby
the learned Trial Court had allowed the application under Order XI
Rules 12 and 14 of CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking
directions to the petitioner/defendant to file certain documents.
2. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
draws attention of this Court to the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by
this Court to fairly submit that the petitioner has restricted the challenge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:13.04.2023
16:49:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2516
to the impugned order in respect of only the direction to file the
statement of the bank account belonging to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has categorically in
para-34 at page 108 has referred to the payment of Rs.15 Lacs made to
the respondent /plaintiff by way of Cheque No.252788 dated 02.06.2018
drawn on Axis Bank, Secctor-18, Noida-201301 and submits that there
is an assertion by the petitioner/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff
had encashed this aforesaid amount.
4. Learned counsel also submits that so far as the other amounts as
reflected in the plaint is concerned, the petitioner/defendant has already
admitted those, therefore, the question of production of the account
statement of the Bank was not required and is unnecessary so far as the
contention of the petitioner/defendant is concerned.
5. Learned counsel submits that the direction of the learned Trial
Court to the petitioner/defendant to produce the bank statement of the
bank account is akin to the roving enquiry into the account statements of
the petitioner/defendant and is not warranted under the circumstances.
On that basis, learned counsel submits that the order to that extent
should be set aside.
6. Per Contra, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent/plaintiff submits that the amounts as indicated in the
plaint may have been admitted by the petitioner/defendant, however, in
respect of the amount of Rs.15 Lacs as divulged in para-34 of the
written statement is concerned, the specific stand of the
respondent/plaintiff is that such sum was never encashed by the
respondent/plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:13.04.2023
16:49:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2516
7. Therefore, on that basis, learned counsel submits that in order to
resolve the controversy, it is necessary that the petitioner/defendant is
directed to produce the statement of account to show as to how, when
and in what manner such sum was paid by the petitioner/defendant to
the respondent/plaintiff.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order passed
by the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law and there is no
material irregularity or judicial impropriety committed by the learned
Trial Court warranting interference by this Court.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and
has also perused the contentions of para-34 of the written statement filed
by the petitioner/defendant before the learned Trial Court.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that instead of directing
the petitioner/defendant to produce the entire statement of account,
having regard to the fact that those accounts, which have been
mentioned by the respondent/plaintiff in its plaint have already been
admitted by the petitioner/defendant, the only controversy which may
require some resolution or clarification or evidence to be led, would be
in respect of the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 Lacs which the
petitioner/defendant contends to have paid by way of cheque to the
respondent/plaintiff and the further assertion that the same has been
encashed.
11. In view of the above, this Court considers that the direction by the
learned Trial Court in the impugned order may be modified only to the
extent that the petitioner/defendant produces proper and valid bank
certificate in respect of the contention that the petitioner/defendant has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:13.04.2023
16:49:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2516
paid a sum of Rs.15 Lacs by way of Cheque No. 252788 dated
02.06.2018 drawn on Axis Bank, Sector-18, Noida-201301 and places
the same on record of the learned Trial Court.
12. The aforesaid direction would suffice the need of the
petitioner/defendant to produce the documents relating to the statement
of accounts of the aforesaid bank.
13. The petitioner/defendant is directed to place on record of the
learned Trial Court on or before 12.07.2023, the aforesaid document as
directed with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff. The learned Trial Court shall take the same on
record and proceed in accordance with law, thereafter.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
APRIL 10, 2023
Aj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:13.04.2023
16:49:13
