Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs Smt Janak Lali on 29 May, 2023
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2023
+ CM(M) 925/2023
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
SMT JANAK LALI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal,
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Patel, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM(M) 921/2023 & CM APPL. 29319/2023 (for stay)
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.02.2023 in CS No.
94892/2016 titled as "Raj Kumar Singh vs. Janak Lali", whereby the
learned Trial Court had dimissed the application under Order XVI Rule
1 (3) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
permission to place on record an additional list of the witnesses to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:29:09
examined and also for re-opening the petitioner/ plaintiff's evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessity for
seeking such permission arose from the fact that in the evidence, the
witnesses of the respondent/ defendant have disclosed during cross-
examination, that instead of the petitioner, one Mr. Sukhdev was
adopted.
3. Learned counsel submits that the entire evidence in respect of the
proof that the petitioner was the person who was adopted by the
adoptive parents can be proved by examining the witnesses, who are
named in the additional list of witnesses.
4. Learned counsel submists that though the matter is at the stage of
final hearing, in order to do substantial justice, the learned Trial Court as
also this Court, can permit the examination of such witnesses so as to
reach the truth. Learned counsel submits that it would be in the interests
of justice to provide one opportunity to the petitioner to prove the
contention that the petitioner alone was the person adopted by the
adoptive parents.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits
that the application which was dismissed, vide the impugned order, was
moved after almost 20 years, as plaintiff's evidence had commenced in
the year 2004.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the stand of the respondent/
defendant, that it was Mr. Sukhdev and not the petitioner who was
adopted by the adoptive parents, was asserted in the written statement
itself. Learned counsel further submits that once having disclosed the
aforesaid stand of Mr. Sukhdev being adopted in place of the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:29:09
was evident from the averments in the written statement, the petitioner
ought to have taken steps in accordance with law and within time.
7. This Court has considered the arguments of the parties and is of
the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. On a query by this Court, the counsel for the petitioner does not
dispute that the stand of the respondent/ defendant in respect of Mr.
Sukhdev being adopted was already taken by the respondent/ defendant
in the written statement itself. Learned counsel also submits that the
appropriate objection thereto, were also taken in the replication.
9. After considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the
petitioner took such a long time to seek amendment to the list of
witnesses and had not examined the said witnesses in the first place
itself.
10. Moreover, as per the impugned order, the petitioner had in fact
examined the PW-2, who is stated to be the teacher of MCD Primary
School in Sultanpuri and also PW-3 Sh. Jai Prakash, who was an
attendant in the same MCD School in Sultanpuri, Delhi. Having
examined the aforesaid two witnesses and that too on 08.09.2003 and
10.02.2004 respectively, the petitioner cannot be heard to request the
learned Trial Court after a passage of almost 20 years to take on record
the additional list of witnesses and simultaneously seek recall of the said
witnesses for further examination.
11. On an overall conspectus of the order XVI Rule 1 (3) r/w Order
XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908, it is amply clear that under compelling
circumstances and for justified reasons, the Trial Court may in certain
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:29:09
cases exercise its jurisdiction to permit the parties to amend the list of
witnesses or as also permit the parties to examine or recall witnesses.
12. However, in the present case, it is clear from the reading of the
impugned order as also from the submissions made by the parties that
the petitioner had not taken steps in time. In fact, the petitioner had
literally slept over his rights over almost two decades. This observation
is made on the basis that a categorical stand was made by the
respondent/ defendant in the written statement so filed, which was
known to the petitioner even before the year 2003 when the plaintiff's
evidence commenced.
13. Having regard to the above, this Court does not deem it fit to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
This Court is refraining itself from passing any order on costs, though
the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition along with pending
application stand diposed of with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 29, 2023/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:02.06.2023
18:29:09
