Sarita Verma & Anr vs State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sarita Verma & Anr vs State Bank Of India on 27 January, 2023

Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela

                          $~47
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    CM(M) 128/2023
                               SARITA VERMA & ANR.                        ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate with
                                                       Mr. Arindam Dey and Mr. Jatin
                                                       Bhatia, Advocates.
                                              versus
                               STATE BANK OF INDIA                                  ..... Respondent
                                            Through:             Ms. Arpana Kumar, proxy counsel for
                                                                 Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Mr. Akshit Kapur
                                                                 and Mr. Tushar Bagga, Advocate.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                                ORDER

% 27.01.2023 [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CM APPL. 3936/2023 (for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 128/2023 & CM APPL. 3935/2023 (for stay)

3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 28.07.2022 in CS No. 473/2017 titled "Sarita Verma vs. The State Bank of India", whereby the learned Trial Court has closed the right to cross-examine the defendant's witness on the ground that proxy counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the main counsel was busy before this Court and was not able to reach in the morning session of the Trial Court proceedings.

4. The learned Trial Court further examined the defendant's witness, namely, DW-1 and has specifically noted in the impugned order that the cross is treated as nil, despite opportunity given.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 128/2023 1 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:31.01.2023 17:56:45

5. Petitioner also challenges the order dated 26.11.2022, whereby the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2022 was rejected.

6. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the counsel had reached the Court a little late on 28.07.2022, however was ready and willing to cross examine DW-1, even though the witness was a fresh witness, Learned Trial Court overlooked his submissions and passed the impugned order dated 28.07.2022.

7. This Court has perused the order dated 28.07.2022 and, prima facie, is of the opinion that such an order for closing the right to cross- examine the witness ought not to have been passed in such haste.

8. Issue notice.

9. Ms. Arpana Kumar, proxy counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent and accepts notice. She submits that Mr. Kapur is unwell and would be unable to assist this Court today. Proxy counsel seeks some time to file reply.

10. Reply may be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

11. List for consideration on 04.05.2023.

12. In the meanwhile, learned Trial Court is directed to defer the proceedings stated to be fixed for 04.02.2023 to a date beyond the date fixed by this Court.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 27, 2023/nd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 128/2023 2 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:31.01.2023 17:56:45

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders