Delhi High Court - Orders
Roopak Stores Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Roopaks Pik-N-Pay & Ors on 16 September, 2022
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 741/2017
ROOPAK STORES PVT. LTD. & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Saransh Saini and Apoorva
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
ROOPAKS PIK-N-PAY & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Purvesh Buttan, Mr. Prateek Narwar and
Ms. Monika Rathor, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 16.09.2022
1. The matter was placed before this Court by the learned Local Commissioner, recording the evidence, as during the cross-examination of PW-1, an objection was raised by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs with respect to question No. 79, on the ground that name of a counsel cannot be part of any question in the cross-examination and the counsel also requested the matter to be placed before the Court before further cross-examination.
2. Question 79 is extracted hereunder for ready reference, including the objection thereto:-
"Q.79 I put it to you that even in the year 2017 you had opposed the trade mark application bearing No. 2807792 of Trade mark Roopak's and the said opposition was filed by Mr. M.K. Miglani, the present Advocate of Plaintiff No. 1, upon the instructions of Plaintiff No. 1, and even in that opposition you had no where stated that Defendant had at any point of time expressed his intentions to start the business of Chhabra or of Readymade garments as alleged by you in your plaint and in affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. What do you have to say?Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 741/2017 Page 1 of 3 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:22.09.2022 20:07:30
At this stage Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs raises the objection on the ground that name of Counsel cannot be part of any question in the cross examination. The entire line of questioning being put to the witness is on the contents of documents already on record and which are matter of record and request that this matter be placed before the Court before proceeding further. In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the Counsels for the parties, further cross examination of PW-1 could not be continue. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble Court for appropriate direction. The date 29.02.2020 stands cancelled accordingly. However, further dates are not changed."
3. In my view, the objection raised on behalf of the Plaintiffs is not tenable in law and was unwarranted. As rightly argued by learned Senior Counsel for the Defendants, the question was not in relation to the contents of the document as no document was put to the witness for perusal. It was only to check the veracity, correctness and tenability of the statement made by the witness in his evidence by way of affidavit, i.e., PW-1/A and to confront the witness of his averments with respect to the previous records and his previous assertions. Therefore, the name of the counsel was not used in the manner alleged by the Plaintiffs and was only for the purpose of refreshing the memory of the witness. Accordingly, the objection cannot be sustained.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs points out that till date the fee of the learned Local Commissioner which was to be equally borne by the parties has not been paid by the Defendants, to the extent of their share.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs also submits that on account of the financial crisis being faced by the Plaintiffs, they will be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 741/2017 Page 2 of 3 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:22.09.2022 20:07:30 unable to bear the fee of the learned Local Commissioner in future and therefore, further evidence be recorded by the learned Joint Registrar.
6. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, submits that the arrears of the fee of the learned Local Commissioner shall be cleared immediately. She further submits that since substantial evidence has been led it would not be appropriate to discontinue the evidence before the learned Local Commissioner and the Defendants are ready and willing to pay the fee for recording of further evidence.
7. List before the learned Local Commissioner on 11.10.2022, for further evidence.
8. Defendants would ensure that the fee of the learned Local Commissioner is paid on time.
JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2022/sn/rk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 741/2017 Page 3 of 3 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:22.09.2022 20:07:30