PRADEEP KUMAR vs MOTILAL AND ANR
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.10.2023
+ CM(M) 1625/2023
PRADEEP KUMAR …… Petitioner
Through: Mir Akhtar Hussain and Ms. Sonia Goswami, Advocates along with Mrs. Maheshi, wife and Mr. Saurabh Shankar and Mr. Dipanshu Shankar sons of Petitioner
versus
MOTILAL AND ANR …… Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Kapur, Advocate along with Respondent
%
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
CM APPL. No. 51323/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1625/2023 & CM APPLs. 51322/2023(stay)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Trial Court) in CS(COMM) No. 2024/2022 whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner for recall of the order dated 10.04.2023 wherein, the Petitioners right to cross-examine PW-1, Mrs. Veena Kumari was closed.
2. The suit is filed by the Respondents for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, use & occupation charges/damages and permanent & mandatory injunction with respect to Shop No. 5 without roof rights situated at Ground Floor, Property No. 4225 to 4227, Raigarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (suit property) against the Petitioner herein.
3. After some arguments and with the consent of parties, the following directions are being passed:
3.1. Mr. Deepanshu Shankar, Mr. Saurabh Shankar, Mr. Vineet Shankar and Mr. Honey Shankar, the four (4) sons of Sh. Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Maheshi (six individuals), who carry on business in an adjoining shop next to the suit property undertake to this Court that they will not create any obstruction or hindrance in the Respondents ingress or egress and use of the suit property.
3.2. The said six individuals further undertake that they will not place any of their goods/material either in the front of the suit property or close to the suit property in any manner which would be within the boundaries of the suit property or the passage to access the suit property or in the public space outside the said property.
3.3. Mrs. Maheshi, Mr. Saurabh Shankar and Mr. Dipanshu Shankar are present in person. They state that they are duly authorized to make the statement on behalf of the Petitioner Sh. Pradeep Kumar and the remaining family members Mr. Vineet Shankar and Mr. Happy Shankar.
4. The said undertaking of the six individuals is taken on record and they are bound to the said undertaking. The counsel for the Petitioner has duly explained to them that the consequences of breach of the said undertaking will make them liable for contempt of Court.
5. It is being agreed between the parties that the Petitioner herein will be granted one last opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 on the date fixed by the Trial Court.
5.1. The Petitioner undertakes to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent on or before 06.10.2023 before the Trial Court to compensate the plaintiff for the delay caused in cross examining the plaintiff witness.
5.2. It is further agreed between the parties that on the next date of hearing which is fixed before the Trial Court i.e., on 06.10.2023, an adjournment will be sought by the parties and the parties will appear before the Trial Court on the next date convenient to the Trial Court for cross-examination PW-1.
6. It is directed by this Court that no adjournment will be sought by/granted to the Petitioner herein for cross-examining PW-1 on the next date fixed by the Trial Court.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he will take all steps necessary for leading the defendants evidence within a period of ten (10) days from today.
8. The present petition has been filed by Ms. Maheshi, the wife of Sh. Pradeep Kumar (i.e., the Petitioner) even though no power of attorney executed in her favour has been placed on record; however, since Smt. Maheshi is identified by the parties the issue of maintainability of this petition is not being examined.
8.1. However, if Ms. Maheshi elects to defend the suit on behalf of the Petitioner, the issue of her authority will be decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of parties in this regard are left open.
9. In the aforesaid facts, though this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.07.2023, the final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 has been granted to the Petitioenr/defendant on the terms set out hereinabove. The aforesaid order has been passed with the consent of the parties.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending applications stand disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
OCTOBER 5, 2023/hp
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
CM(M) 1625/2023 Page 2 of 2