Delhi District Court
Gautam Dev Sharma vs Ruchi Singla on 3 October, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, SPECIAL
JUDGE, CBIII (P.C. ACT), DISTT. NORTH WEST, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
Crl. (R) No. 4/2016
Unique Case I.D. No. 02404R0049482016
Gautam Dev Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram Shastri Vagish
R/o Flat No. D1, Parwana Vihar,
Sector9, Delhi110085 ..... Petitioner
Versus
Ruchi Singla
W/o M.K. Singla
R/o B2/3, Jiwan Jyoti Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi110034 ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 01.02.2016
Date or arguments : 24.09.2016
Date of orders : 03.10.2016
ORDER
This is a revision to modify the order dated 09.12.15 passed by the trial court in CC No. 222/1/ of PS Vijay Vihar.
2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the file.
C(R) No. 4/16 P1/4 2
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts and the law. In order to prove his case, it is necessary that the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to examine his witness. The trial court has committed illegality by imposing restrictions to the extent of the deposition of the summoned witness. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be modified. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts of the case. There is no illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition be dismissed as without being having any merits.
4. Perusal of the file shows that the petitioner has filed a complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act against the respondent. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the respondent had purchased the flat from the wife of the petitioner for total sale consideration of Rs.4,25,000/. Out of this total sale consideration, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ and remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/ has to be paid after the no dues certificate of the flat from the concerned authority furnished to the respondent. For this payment, the accused issued the post dated cheque for Rs.2,25,000/ to the petitioner. The petitioner had handed over no dues certificate to the respondent and presented the said cheque in the concerned bank. The said cheque was dishonoured.
5. To prove this case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1.
C(R) No. 4/16 P2/4 3 The petitioner moved an application to allow him to examine the President namely Sh. L.R. Madan of M/s Jeewan Jyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. In the application, it has been alleged by the petitioner that during the course of trial of the case, the respondent had took the stand that she has no liability to pay the amount of the said cheque as the liability to pay the dues of the said society and loan liability of DCHFC Ltd. still exists. It is the liability of the respondent to deal with any dispute if raised by the DCHFC Ltd. However, the respondent approached to settle the dispute through Sh. L.R. Madan, President to the effect that the petitioner bears the cost of litigation against the DCHFC Ltd. Accordingly, the petitioner incurred the expenses of litigations in the arbitration proceedings against the DCHFC Ltd. It is prayed in the application that the examination of the President of the society is relevant to prove the case of the petitioner.
On this application, the trial court has passed the impugned order which is as follows: "Only for this limited and specific purpose present application is allowed and it is made clear to the complainant that he can examine the witness only for bringing on record the record of flat No. B2/3, Jeewan Jyoti Apartment, Pitam Pura till 12.04.2003 regarding the pendency of the dues and for no other purpose."
The petitioner has filed the application for summoning of the C(R) No. 4/16 P3/4 4 witness when the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner. To prove his case, the petitioner is entitled to have fair opportunity to lead his evidence and to examine the witnesses.
After considering the allegations of the petitioner as made in the complaint and as also in the application, it is necessary to arrive at just conclusion of the case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to examine Sh. L.R. Madan. The imposing of any restriction on the extent of deposition of L.R. Madan would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner and would result in failure of fair trial. Accordingly, the condition in the impugned order dated 09.12.15 passed by the trial court in CC No. 222/1/ of PS Vijay Vihar as to the extent of examination of the witness is set aside and the revision petition is allowed.
6. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court along with the attested copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)
today i.e. on 03.10.16 Special Judge, CBIII, North West
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C(R) No. 4/16 P4/4