Himachal Pradesh High Court
Brahm Dutt vs Bimla Devi (Deceased) Through Her Lrs ... on 17 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 462 of 2020 Reserved on: 27.05.2024.
.
Date of Decision: 17.06.2024
Brahm Dutt ....Petitioner
Versus
Bimla Devi (deceased) through her LRs and Others ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Owais Khan, Advocate, for
respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and 2 to 9.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner (defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. vide which his application was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 22. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for .
seeking declaration that the Will dated 02.08.2005 stated to have been executed by Smt. Sunpa Devi and consequent mutation No.1365 attested on 23.10.2015 were null, void, and not binding on the plaintiffs and they are the owners of the said land to the extent of 1/11th share. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the land to any person was also sought.
3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement denying the contents of the plaint. It was asserted that deceased Sunpa Devi had executed a Will on 02.08.2005 in their favour in her sound disposing state of mind. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. When the matter was listed for recording the evidence, defendant No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of CPC read with Sections 145, 154 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to recall the witnesses Sh. Ram Dayal and Sh. Sonu for their cross-examination after declaring them hostile. It was asserted that defendant No.1 had set up a Will. Defendant No.1 examined Sh. Ram Dayal and Sh. Sonu as marginal witnesses to the Will. Sh. Ram Dayal stated that no Will was executed in his presence; the Will does not bear his signatures and he had ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 3 not appeared before the Tehsildar. Sh. Sonu also made a similar statement. In fact, the Will was executed by Sunpa Devi in their presence .
and the witnesses falsely denied this fact. They also denied their signatures on the Will. They are siding with the plaintiffs for ulterior motive. It is necessary to cross-examine the witnesses to show their falsehood. Therefore, it was prayed that the witnesses be recalled and permission be granted to cross-examine them.
5. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the application disclosing no reason for recalling of the witnesses. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was asserted that the applicant was represented by a Senior counsel and he cannot seek the recall of the witnesses on the change of the counsel. The prayer could have been made on the very day when the witnesses had not supported the applicant's case. The application was highly belated; hence it was prayed that the same be dismissed.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the witness can be recalled and questions in the nature of cross-examination can be put to him under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act if there is a reasonable belief that witness is concealing the truth. It is not permissible for a party to recall the witnesses simply by changing the counsel. The prayer to cross-
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 4examine the witness should have been made on the date of his examination and cannot be made subsequently. Therefore, the .
application was dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, applicant/petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed the present petition asserting that the order passed by learned Trial Court is wrong, illegal and unsustainable. The recall of the witness is necessary to determine the real question in issue between the parties. In case the order is permitted to remain, it will cause irreparable loss to the applicant/defendant No.1.
The witnesses cannot be permitted to tell lies in the Court and the Courts should deal with such witnesses with heavy hand. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
8. I have heard Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Owais Khan, learned counsel for the respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and 2 to 9.
9. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses did not support the applicant/defendant No.1 and told a lie before the Court. Therefore, it is necessary to recall the witnesses to cross-examine them. Learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 5 be allowed and the witnesses be recalled for cross-examination. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.K. .
Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 : & Mysore High Court in Sivhamurthy Swamy v. Agodi Songanno, AIR 1969 Mys 12 in support of his submissions.
10. Mr. Owais Khan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs supported the order passed by learned Trial Court.
He submitted that the re-examination of the witness can be sought after the cross-examination of the witness is over and not afterwards. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. Vipan Kumar 2017 (4) Civil Court Cases 429. He further submitted that the prayer to cross-examine the witness can be sought during the examination and not when the witness was discharged. He relied upon the judgments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mattam Ravi Vs. Mattam Raja Yellaiah 2018 (1) Civil Court Cases 205 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in Satnam Singh Vs. Phoola Singh 2015 supplement Civil Court cases 421. He submitted that the power of recall should be exercised sparingly and cannot be exercised merely because of the change of the counsel. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 402. He submitted that the witness ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 6 cannot be declared hostile without sufficient material and merely on the asking of the party. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad .
High Court in Leela Dhar Vs. Mohammad Ismail Qureshi 2018 (2) Civil Court Cases 464 (Allahabad) in support of his submission.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12. The power of the Court to recall the witness was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy (supra) and it was held that the Court has inherent power to recall a witness to enable it to put such questions as may appear to be just. This power is not exercised in routine but sparingly, it was observed as under:-
"9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. (Vide Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate [(2009) 4 SCC 410 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 198].)
10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 7 material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any .
party, so that the Court itself can put questions and elicit answers.
Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.
11.There is no specific provision in 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 the reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes 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 questions to elicit any clarifications.
19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 8 schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs".
.
13. Mysore High Court held in Shivmurthy (supra) that the Court has the discretion to permit a party to put the questions in the nature of cross-examination to a witness summoned by it; however, before exercising such powers, the Court should be satisfied that the witness is not speaking the truth. It was observed as under:-
"13. Although as stated by the Privy Council and as always held to be correct law in India, it is not necessary to make a formal declaration that witness is hostile to the party calling him before permitting a party to cross-examine him because the purpose of cross-examination is to test the truth of the evidence given by a witness, the Court would be right in permitting the cross- examination by the very party who called that witness only if it has reason to believe that the witness may be in some manner or the other unwilling to speak the truth or not disposed to speak the truth and that therefore it is necessary to submit his evidence to the test of cross-examination by the very party calling him. Now, it should be remembered that in the case of every witness, there is a right of cross-examination given by the Evidence Act to the adverse party. An adverse party in normal circumstances is the party opposed to the party calling the witness. An answer given by a witness adverse to the party calling him would in normal circumstances be an answer in favour of the case of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party may not be interested in cross-
examining him in respect of the answer. It is in such circumstances that the Court will find itself without assistance of the test of cross-examination if the party calling him is not himself permitted to cross-examine his witness.
14. The essence of the matter, therefore, is not whether an answer given to a question is adverse to the case of one or the other of the parties but whether an answer given or a disposition disclosed in a matter likely to damage the case of the party calling the witness, may be suspected to be inspired by a desire not to speak ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 9 the truth or to hide the truth or to colour the truth in such a way as to mislead the Court.
15. In normal cases where it can fairly be assumed that a party .
calling a witness represents to the Court that he is a trustworthy witness, an occasion for the party calling him to seek permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can arise only where he unexpectedly gives an answer which is adverse to his case. Even there, it is not enough if the party feels that the witness is hostile to him; it is necessary that the Court should come to entertain an opinion that the witness has such hostile animus against the party calling him as to be inspired by a desire to speak the untruth or not to speak the truth.
16. Hence, in such cases, an element of surprise of the type mentioned above becomes the starting point for a consideration by the Court of the question whether it should exercise its discretion under Section 154 and permit the party calling a witness to cross-examine him.
17. It is with reference to such cases that Rowland, J., observed in Sachidanand Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Pat 488 at p. 492, that permission under Section 154 could hardly be refused when any witness makes an unexpected statement adverse to the case of the prosecution. As I read the observation, it means that an attempt on the part of the witness to depart from what is tentatively believed to be true is open to the suspicion that he may be departing from the truth, making it necessary to test his veracity by cross-examination by the party to whose detriment his unexpected departure may operate.
18. With reference to cases of witnesses like an attesting witness whom the law obliges a party to examine, Mukherjee, J., has in I.L.R. 47 Cal 1043 : (AIR 1921 Cal 677) pointed out that it is wrong law to assume that such witnesses must be regarded as witnesses called by the Court and liable to be cross-examined as of right by the party citing them. His Lordship states that a witness should be regarded as adverse and liable to cross- examination by the party calling him only when, in the opinion of the Court, he bears hostile animus to the party calling him and further that a hostile witness in the real sense is one who from the manner in which he gives him evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth.::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 10
19. Now, the present case does not fall under either of these categories. According to Mr. Patil, he has been obliged by circumstances and by way of pure necessity to call this witness, because having regard to the acts and activities attributed to this witness which amount to corrupt practice under the .
Representation of the People Act, he was one who, in all probability, was not likely to be examined by the respondents at all but whose evidence is necessary to be placed on record to assist the petitioner to discharge the burden of proof resting on him. Indeed, this witness has been described by Mr. Patil as in truth and in substance a witness for the respondents, that is to say, a person who by his acts has shown himself to be so deeply interested in the respondents as to be regarded as a witness favourable to the respondents and unfavourable to the petitioner.
He further adds that the petitioner considers it his duty to cite and examine this witness with a view to assist the court to arrive at the truth.
20. Now, these statements or contentions put forward by Mr. Patil for the petitioner lead to one inevitable inference, viz., that even at the time this witness was cited by the petitioner, he had no illusions about the type of evidence he might give, but did distinctly and clearly contemplate that it would be necessary for him to cross-examine this witness for the purpose of making out his own case.
21. If such is the position, he cannot be said to represent to the Court that this witness may be regarded as a trustworthy witness.
If, therefore, he gives an answer adverse to the case of the petitioner he cannot be heard to say that he has been taken by surprise and that therefore he may be permitted to test the truth of the answer by himself cross-examining the witness. Mr. Patil nevertheless argues that his case must be regarded as on par with the case of an attesting witness which a party propounding a will or an attested document is bound by law to examine.
22. I do not think that the analogy applies in all respects. The necessity in this case of examining the witness is not one imposed by law but one regarded as existing by the petitioner and one which to a great extent depends upon an opinion of the petitioner. If his view is that this witness is strongly disposed in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner and he nevertheless entertains the opinion that it is necessary for him to examine this witness to make out this case and at the same time ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 11 actually expects that it will be necessary for him to cross-examine him to make out his case, then, it clearly means that he is taking a chance of the witness making some answers which may support his case, but at the same time expects to be enabled by the Court to impeach his credit by cross-examination should he give .
answers adverse to his case.
23. Such a situation in my opinion, is not one which may, in any sense, be said to entitle the petitioner to seek permission of the Court under Section 154 of the Evidence Act to cross-examine the witness. If he took the chance of this witness making some answer in favour of his case, he must also take the risk of the witness damaging his case by his other answers. To hold otherwise would be to bring about a situation which is clearly unfair to the respondents.
24. What is stated above is a line of inference which flow from the original opinion entertained by the petitioner when he cited this witness, and the consequences which flow from his conduct are consequences which, both according to law as well as ordinary human calculations, a man taking a chance must in all fairness take.
25. From the point of view of the Court, the one and only consideration is whether the attitude disclosed by the witness is one destructive of his duty to speak the truth. An animus adverse to the party calling him necessary for the grant of permission under Section 154 is such animus as is sufficient to create in the mind of the Court a tentative opinion or at least a suspicion that the witness is not disposed to speak the truth or is disposed to speak the untruth, making it necessary to permit the party calling him to cross-examine him for the simple reason that the opposite party normally entitled to cross-examine him may not cross- examine him in view of the fact that the answer is favourable to his case.
26. From this point of view, the mere fact that the answer is adverse to the case of the party calling him is not sufficient, and in peculiar circumstances of this case, such an answer by itself can hardly be regarded as untrue or as disclosing a desire on the part of the witness to speak the truth, because the petitioner did not expect and cannot reasonably be said to have expected that the witness would support his case and he cannot therefore tell the Court that because he does not support his case, the witness is ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 12 speaking the untruth. It may be that the witness knows that every thing stated about him in the petition is not true or not knowing what has been stated about him in the petition is admitting only such facts of his as are true and denying as untrue any other acts or activities which he did not indulge in. Even if he should be .
regarded, as the petitioner contends, as a person favourably disposed towards the respondents, it need not be that he has any special animus against the petitioner so as to be willing to speak the untruth".
14. The Kerala High Court also held in Thankamani v.
Prabhakaran, 2001 SCC OnLine Ker 47 that power under Section 154 is not only available to the Criminal Court but can be exercised by the Civil Court. However, before allowing the prayer, the Court should be satisfied that the witness is not prepared to go by the oath that he has taken. It was observed:-
"7. It may be clarified here that the provisions aforementioned are not merely confined to application before criminal courts; but are equally applicable to the civil courts as well. No doubt, in civil cases previous statements as available in criminal cases may not be existing. That, however, is no reason to disallow a party from cross-examining his witness invoking power under Sec.
154. It may also not be correct to say that a witness can be cross-
examined only after declaring him as hostile. The expression 'hostile witness' has no statutory origin; it is actually borrowed from English Law. The grant of permission for cross-examining a witness which will include putting leading questions to the witness is a matter of discretion of the court. That discretion is a judicial discretion which might be liberally exercised, though it cannot be done in a casual or
8. The effect of allowing cross-examination is not to wipe off the effect of the version given in chief examination. The purpose is to test the veracity of the witness and the discretion has to be exercised with care and circumspection. The purpose of such cross-examination need not necessarily be to convince the court that the credit of the witness has been shaken and it is for the ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 13 court to consider his evidence as a whole with sufficient caution and then decide whether to accept his version at all and if so, which part of it.
.
9. This, however, does not mean that whenever a request is made for permitting cross-examination of a witness by the party who summoned him, the court should, as a matter of course, allow such request or that this should be extended to the examination of all witnesses wherever the party feels that the witness is not giving the answers that would best suit the party who summoned the witness. All the same if the court is satisfied that the witness summoned is not prepared to go by the oath that he has taken, i.e., to state the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and expresses a hostile attitude, there will be nothing that prevents the court from granting the required permission.
10. The question whether the right of a party to cross-examine his own witness can be exercised only after declaring the witness as 'hostile' came up for consideration of this Court in the case reported in 1989 (1) K.L.T. Short Note 43 at page 25. It was held that there is no such requirement and that it would be unsafe to lay down as a principle of law that the party who calls a witness would be bound by everything that the witness speaks in court even if the court is satisfied that the witness has spoken falsehood. The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit admissions of facts which would help build the case of the cross- examiner. When the party who calls the witness chooses to cross-
examine him with the permission of the court, it would be illogical to predicate that the party is bound by every answer which such witness gives. The very fact that the party seeks permission of the court to cross-examine a witness, it was held, was indicative of his stand that the witness was not speaking the truth or at least the whole truth according to the party who called him.
11. The law does not expect that a party should bring his witness after tutoring. It is not even expected that he should first seek the permission of the witness before citing him or discuss with him the purpose for which he is summoned. In fact, it is the summons ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 14 issued from the court that makes the witness duty bound to appear before court. He can come before court with open mind and even totally oblivious of the purpose of his examination in the case concerned. After taking oath he is bound to give true and .
correct answers to the questions put to him. It is only when the party who summons the witness finds that the witness is not giving a true version that the need for cross-examination would arise. Once that contingency arises, it is for him to make request to the court for necessary permission as contemplated under Sec. 154 of the Evidence Act and if the permission is given the party certainly gets the right to put questions to the witness as allowable in cross-examination albeit the witness was brought at his own instance.
12. All that is required on the part of the court in such cases, is to endorse, at the relevant portion of the deposition of the witness, within brackets, the fact that the counsel for the witness sought for permission to cross-examine the witness at that stage and that the permission was granted. Further portion of the deposition may be recorded under 'the heading 'cross examination'. If however, the court, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, deems it fit to deny the permission sought for under Sec. 154; it would be expected to record, briefly, reasons for such decision (also in the deposition within brackets) and to proceed with the recording of further deposition, if any".
15. The Allahabd High Court had also taken a similar view in Leela Dhar (supra).
16. Therefore, it is apparent from these judgments that the Court has a discretion to permit a party to calling the witness to put the question in the nature of cross-examination to him, if the Court is satisfied that there exists some material to show that witnesses is not telling the truth and is committing perjury.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 1517. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the witnesses are not telling the truth. The record shows that only two .
witnesses have been examined so far on behalf of the defendants who have stated that Sunpa Devi had not executed any Will in their presence.
The plaintiff had also made a similar statement. No other witness was examined to show that the witnesses are not telling the truth. The Sub-
Registrar or the identifier were not produced to show that Sunpa Devi had executed a Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses and they are not speaking the truth before the Court. Thus, learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for recalling the witnesses at this stage.
18. It was submitted that the witness cannot be recalled for re-examination after he has been discharged. This submission overlooks the fact that the prayer is not for recalling the witness for re-examination but for his further examination and putting the questions in the nature of the cross-examination. Hence, the judgment cited in Dinesh Kumar (supra) will not apply to the present case.
19. It was further submitted that the prayer to put the questions in the nature of cross-examination should have been made when the witness was being examined and it is impermissible to make such a prayer after the witness is discharged. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Kerala High Court in N. Ramraj and ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 16 Ors. vs. Madhu and Ors. (MANU/KE/0780/2008) that a witness can be recalled for putting questions to him in the nature of cross-examination .
when he has not supported the version of the party calling him in the cross-examination. It was observed:-
"Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had taken me through the chief examination affidavit as well the cross-examination and there are striking difference between the two. So, when the chance of re- examination arose he requested the Court to permit him to put leading questions in re-examination which the Court below had granted. Now the learned Counsel for plaintiff had cited before me the decision of the Apex Court in Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0068/1964 : AIR 1964 SC 1563 : 1964 (7) SCR 361 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 472 : 1965 (2) ACC 93 (SC) where a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that the Court can permit party calling a witness to put questions in the nature of cross-examination in the stage of re-examination and the principle of such permission in civil matters has been decided by this Court in Thankamani v. Prabhakaran MANU/KE/0901/2001 : 2001 (1) KLT 776 : 2001 KHC 185 :
2001 (1) KLJ 529. Therefore, when the party has summoned a witness, feels that he has been let down by giving contradictory answers to what he has stated in the chief examination, certainly he is legally entitled to clarify the position by further putting questions to him in the leading form as envisaged under section 154 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, I confirm the order of the learned Addl. Sub Judge, who has permitted to cross-examine the witness by recalling PW. 2. Needless to say that when the permission is granted to cross-examine the witness in re-
examination, necessarily, the other party has to be given an opportunity to do recross after the examination done in re- examination so that the entire picture will be clear before Court and the Court can at least attempt to analyse what is the truth. If there is a request to record those examination in the question- answer form that may be considered by the Court below.
20. Therefore, the submission that the prayer has to be made at the moment when the witness is in the witness box and such a prayer ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS 17 cannot be made after the witness has been discharged is not acceptable.
Accepting this submission would render the provisions of Order 18 Rule .
17 of the CPC otiose.
21. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from filing the application subsequent and the Court considering the same, in case sufficient material is brought on record to show that witnesses were not telling the truth.
22. to The stay order granted on 16.12.2020 shall stand vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information.
Parties, through their respective counsel are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 08.07.2024.
17th June, 2024 (Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
(Manish)
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2024 20:30:47 :::CIS