Delhi High Court
Comfort Net Traders (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Stellar And Unimax India Ltd. & Anr on 26 May, 2025
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26th May, 2025
+ CM(M) 1000/2025 & CM APPL. 32842-32843/2025
COMFORT NET TRADERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary and Mr. Ankit
Kumar, Advocates
versus
STELLAR AND UNIMAX INDIA LTD. & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner is defending a suit which seeks recovery of Rs. 22,38,953/-.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2025 whereby PW1, who
was earlier under cross-examination, has now been permitted to enter into
witness box for examination-in-chief for proving Board Resolution dated
17.04.2024. It is submitted that such request was not liable to be entertained
by the learned Trial Court and is in teeth of the specific observations made in
Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 296.
3. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 21.05.2025
whereby such permission was granted. However, said order cannot be read
in isolation and it has to be read in conjunction with previous order dated
11.03.2025.
4. When PW1 was already under cross-examination, plaintiff had moved
an application seeking permission to place on record one Board Resolution
and vide aforesaid order dated 11.03.205, learned Trial Court allowed such
application and permitted the plaintiff to place on record such Board
Resolution and also to prove the same.
5. Undoubtedly, witness was already under cross-examination but in view
of the aforesaid development and the permission granted by the learned Trial
Court itself to prove the aforesaid document, there is nothing wrong in the
order whereby learned Trial Court has permitted the plaintiff/PW1 to enter
into witness box again to make reference about the aforesaid Board
Resolution. Needless to say, defendant would always be at liberty to put
questions in this regard during cross-examination.
6. There cannot be any debate or qualm with respect to the settled legal
position as mentioned in Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (D) Thr Lrs. & Ors.
(supra). In that case, it was observed that Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was not
meant to enable the parties to recall any witness and to prove additional
material which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded.
It was also observed that the above provision was, primarily, a provision,
enabling the Court to clarify any issue or doubt.
7. Fact remains that in the aforesaid judgment, it is also, categorically,
observed that the rigour under Rule 17 does not affect the inherent powers of
the Court to pass required orders for ends of justice to reopen the evidence for
the purpose of examination or cross-examination or even for production of
fresh evidence. In the present case, as already noticed above, learned Trial
Court itself permitted the respondent to place on record and to prove the
Board Resolution and such order dated 11.03.2025 has not been challenged
anywhere and, therefore, as a necessary corollary, the plaintiff, as per the
directions of Court itself, becomes entitled to prove the aforesaid document.
8. This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality and perversity in the
impugned order.
9. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. All the pending applications are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
MANOJ JAIN, J
MAY 26, 2025/dr/shs
