Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sajjid Amir Khan vs Mr Anoop Bartaria And Ors on 9 November, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 14896/2016
Sajjid Amir Khan S/o Sh. Amir Khan, aged about 55
years R/o 23/24, Sea Spring Co-operative Housing
Society, B.J. Road, Band Stand, Bandra, Mumbai-400 050
through Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Anoop Pandey S/o
Sh. Navneet Pandya, aged about 58 years R/o 117,
Veena Beena Shopping Center, Gurunanak Road, Bandra
West, Mumbai.
---Petitioner/Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. Mr. Anoop Bartaria S/o Sh. Virendra Bhartaria, R/o 61,
Jai Jawan Colony, Scheme No. 3, Tonk Road, Jaipur-
302012.
---Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Saif Khan S/o Sh. Sajid Khan R/o 23/24, Sea Spring
Co-operative Housing Society, B.J. Road, Band Stand,
Bandra, Mumbai-400 050.
3. Firdaus Khan W/o Shri Sajjid Amir Khan R/o 23/24,
Sea Spring Co-operative Housing Society, B.J. Road,
Band Stand, Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 (Since Deceased).
4. Shehla Khan D/o Sajid Khan R/o 23/24, Sea Spring
Co-operative Housing Society, B.J. Road, Band Stand,
2
Bandra, Mumbai-400 050.
----ProformaRespondents/ Defendants
5. RF Properties & Trading Ltd., Registered Address 215,
Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Industrial Estate, New Link Road
Andheri, Mumbai, Corporate Office at 310-313, Gaurav
Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through authorized person.
(now known as World Trade Park Ltd.)
--Respondent/Defendant No. 5
Date of Order :: 09.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Yadu Bhargawav with Mr. Sandeep Pathak)
Mr. Arun Jain, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Hora)
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the respondents.
****** By the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2016, the trial Court declined the application instituted seeking permission for confronting the plaintiff-witness with pigeonhole evidence; and therefore, the petitioner has instituted the present writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that the opportunity accorded to cross-examine the plaintiff/respondent on 24th September, 2016, though was concluded but the opportunity to cross-examine the witness with the pigeonhole method, has been declined the trial Court in an arbitrary and illegal manner. For the cross-examination 3 would have been helpful to prove/disprove the relevant document(s).
Moreover, denial for cross-examination of the witness by pigeonhole method would amount to failure, on the part of the trial Court, to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Thus, there is material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, which needs to be interfered by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Per contra: Mr. S.S. Hora, appearing for the respondent No. 1, and Mr. S.N. Kumawat, representing the respondent No.5, while supporting the impugned order dated 3 rd October, 2016, asserted that the reasons, in the application seeking permission would reveal that it was yet another attempt for delay. A glance of the reasons detailed out in the impugned order, would reveal that the order is perfectly legal and valid. The application for permission for cross-examination by pigeonhole method, was rightly disallowed for in the application no reasons were detailed out on what points the plaintiff-witness was to be cross-examined by pigeonhole method.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as carefully considered the impugned order dated 3rd October, 2016.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with somewhat similar controversy in the case of Ratan Lal & 4 Ors. Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.:1991(2)WLC (Raj.) 382, relying upon the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Anr.: 1988(2) SCC 602, observed that not allowing cross-examination by method of pigeonhole would amount to failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court. I see no good reason to take a contrary view.
For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 3rd October, 2016, is hereby set aside.
The petitioner is allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff- witness by pigeonhole method, for which the witness would appear for cross-examination on 10th November, 2016, no further opportunity will be allowed on this count.
This opportunity would be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent on the next date i.e. 10 th November, 2016.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.
Ashu/Jr. P.A/121