Delhi District Court
Spicejet Ltd vs Monal Sachdeva on 11 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
C.S. No: 52/13A
Unique Case ID No. 02403C0051412013
Spicejet Ltd.
Registered Office At:
Near Steel Gate Bus Stop, TerminalI,
Indira Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi110037.
Through:
Authorised Representative
Sh. Sanjay Sharma
... Plaintiff
Versus
Monal Sachdeva
House No. 4, Nyaypuri,
Karnal, Haryana132001
Also At:
(InFlight Manager)
MDLR Airlines, MDLR House,
S.C.O. 2,3,4, Sector15, Old Judicial Complex,
Gurgaon122001.
...Defendant
Date of Institution: 24.01.2009
Date of Reserving Order: 24.02.2014
Date of Order: 11.03.2014
ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 OF CPC
1.By this order, the application filed under Order 18 Rules 17 CPC filed by the CS No. 52/13A Spicejet Ltd. v. Monal Sachdeva Page 1 of 4 plaintiff shall be disposed of.
2. In the application, the plaintiff is praying for recalling the plaintiff's witness Sh. Sanjay Sharma for proving some documents. It is stated in the application that on 21.05.2010, the plaintiff had filed an application U/s. 340 Cr.P.C. before this court. Alongwith said application, certain documents were filed due to the developments based on evidence filed by defendant. It is stated that inadvertently, the documents annexed with the application moved U/s. 340 Cr.P.C. have not been proved by the plaintiff witness though the same are already on record since May, 2010. It is averred that the documents sought to be relied upon through this application relate to the expenses incurred by the plaintiff on training, travel and other monetary advantages given to the defendant by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff proposes to examine plaintiff's witness Sh. Sanjay Sharma only on the limited point related to those documents and has prayed for recalling the plaintiff witness Sh. Sanjay Sharma for this purpose.
3. In reply to the application, the defendant has stated that the plaintiff is only trying to fill up lacunae in its case which is not permissible. It is also stated that the documents filed on record go beyong the pleadings. It is also stated that the documents cannot be stated to be on record as the said documents were filed after the framing of issues and no leave was taken from the court to file those documents. It is also stated that the documents showing expenses do not relate to the training regarding which the present suit has been filed and there is no merit in the application.
4. This court has heard Ld. Advocates for the plaintiff as well as defendant and perused the record. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff relied upon the decision in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, Andichi Ammal v. Periya Muniyandi Moopar (1994) 1 MLJS 14 (Madras), Weston Electronics CS No. 52/13A Spicejet Ltd. v. Monal Sachdeva Page 2 of 4 Ltd. v. M/s. Chand Radio & Ors. Vol. XCIII (19881) Punjab Law Reporter 690, Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj AIR 1984 Del 439 and M/s. National Agro Chemical Industries Ltd. v. M/s. National Research Development Corporation 2005 (118) DLT 653. Ld.Advocate for the defendant relied upon the decision in M/s. Bagai Construction v. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store AIR 2013 SC 1849 and Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 SCC 410.
5. Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC provides for recall of any witness who has been examined. The power under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC is not intended to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. PW1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma has deposed in his evidence affidavit in Para 5 that defendant had undergone training in United Kingdom in May 2007 for Cabin Safety Instructor and DGR training at Singapore in June 2007 at the cost and expenses of plaintiff. The documents which are sought to be proved and for which the witness is sought to be recalled relate to this deposition. Therefore, it cannot be said that an additional fact is sought to be proved. The documents sought to be relied now are merely to show what PW1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma has already deposed in his affidavit. Therefore, the court finds that present application does not intend to fill up lacunae in the case of plaintiff. However, the application is filed because the plaintiff was not diligent to produce the same at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. The documents appear to be relevant for just decision of the case. The application, therefore, needs to be allowed. However, for the delay in moving the application as the documents have been lying and were in possession of the plaintiff for more than four years, the plaintiff should be burdened with costs. The application is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/ to be paid to the defendant on the next date of hearing. PW1 Sh. Sanjay Sharma is recalled only for the purpose of proving CS No. 52/13A Spicejet Ltd. v. Monal Sachdeva Page 3 of 4 the documents mentioned in the present application for 18.03.2014.
Announced in the Open Court (Apoorv Sarvaria)
on 11th March, 2014 Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District/New Delhi
CS No. 52/13A
Spicejet Ltd. v. Monal Sachdeva Page 4 of 4