[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar And Ors vs Parvati Devi And Anr on 16 April, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 08th April, 2026
Date of Decision: 16th April, 2026
+ CM(M) 1330/2022 & CM APPL. 51878/2022
VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Gaganpreet Chawla, Advocate.
versus
PARVATI DEVI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the order dated 29th
October, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order") passed by
the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit bearing No. 12114/2016, whereby a final
opportunity was granted to the respondent No.1/plaintiff to cross-examine
petitioner No.1 who is DW-3, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) to him.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that
vide order dated 18th April, 2017, the right of the respondent No.1 to
cross-examine petitioner No.1 was closed by the trial Court after sufficient
opportunities have been granted to the respondent No.1. The application
seeking recall of the order dated 18th April, 2017 has been filed after a lapse of
almost Four (04) years by the respondent No.1 only to fill up lacunae in his
case. The application has been allowed by the trial Court without speaking
order.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that
respondent No.1 is around 88 years of age and is residing in Gujarat. The son
of the respondent No.1 is looking after this case, respondent No.1 came to
know of the order dated 18th April, 2017 only on 27th December, 2021, when
the newly engaged counsel on his behalf made enquiries in that regard. The
learned trial court has passed the impugned order after duly considering the
material on record and has rightly exercised its inherent powers under Section
151 of the CPC. The present petition is liable to be dismissed as it is without
any merits.
3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the
record.
4. The impugned order is reproduced as under:
"29.10.2022
Present: Sh. Munish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. S.C Gulai, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2
and 3. Defendant no. 3 Vinod Kumar in person.
Cost of Rs.3000/- paid in cash to the defendant in
compliance of the order dated 03.12.2021.
Arguments heard on application U/o XVIII Rule 17
CPC for recalling the order dated 18.04.2017.
It is submitted that the plaintiff is a senior citizen
and aged around 88 years. It is further submitted that the
plaintiff's son did not get any satisfactory information about
the case despite contacting him serveral times therefore,
engaged a new counsel namely Sh. Munish Kumar.
The new counsel for the plaintiff informed the
plaintiff that a cost of Rs.3000/- is imposed upon them for non
appearance vide order dated 03.12.2021.
It is further submitted that there is no specific
provision in the Code enabling the plaintiff to re open the
evidence for the purpose of cross examination. The section
151 CPC provides that noting in the Code shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
or to abuse of the process of the court proceedings.
Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the
defendant no. 3 a final opportunity is granted to the plaintiff
to cross examine the defendant no. 3.
The counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to
conclude the cross examination on the next date of hearing.
List for cross examination of defendant no. 3 on 14.12.2022."
5. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"11. There is no specific provision is the Code enabling
the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further
examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of
the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed
to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the
absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence
or recall of any witness for further examination or
cross-examination, for purpose other than securing
clarification required by the court, the inherent power under
Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be
invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or
recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power
of the court is not affected by the express power conferred
upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall
any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit
any clarifications."
6. Petitioner No.1 is one of the defendants in the suit and is, therefore, a
material witness of the case.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that petitioner No.1 is an important witness, this court is of the opinion that his
cross-examination is necessary for effective adjudication of the case and to
meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, this court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order dated 29th October, 2022 and the same is
upheld. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed being devoid of
any merits. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 16, 2026/MR/isk
