Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Dr. Radheshyam Gupta vs Rani @ Urmila Gupta 14 Wps/6641/2019 ... on 2 September, 2019

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                               1

                                                                NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                      WP227 No. 463 of 2019


  Dr. Radheshyam Gupta, S/o Late Bhajan Lal Gupta, Aged about
  65 years, R/o Cinema Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

                                     --- Petitioner/Defendant No. 1

                            Versus

1. Rani @ Urmila Gupta, aged about 63 years, W/o Ashok Kumar
  Gupta, R/o Sharda Krishi Sewa Kendra, B.C. Naka Chowk, Post
  and Tahsil Umredh, District Nagpur, Maharashtra.      --- Plaintiff

2. Radhekrishna Gupta, S/o Late Bhajan Lal Gupta, Aged about 60
  years, R/o Cinema Line, Rajnandgaion, District Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

3. Keshav Gupta, S/o Dr. Radheshyam Gupta, Aged about 43 years,
  R/o    Cinema    Line,   Rajnandgaion,    District   Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

4. Dr. Girish Gupta, S/ Dr. Radheshyam Gupta, Aged about 39 years,
  R/o    Cinema    Line,   Rajnandgaion,    District   Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

5. Krishna Gupta, S/o Dr. Radheshyam Gupta, Aged about 34 years,
  R/o    Cinema    Line,   Rajnandgaion,    District   Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

6. Smt. Madhuri Gupta, Wife of Dr. Radheshyam Gupta, Aged about
  60 years, R/o Cinema Line, Rajnandgaion, District Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

7. Smt. Aruna Gupta, W/o Radhekrishna Gupta, Aged about 56
  years, R/o Cinema Line, Rajnandgaion, District Rajnandgaon,
  Chhattisgarh.

                                     ---- Respondents/Defendants
2

For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 02/09/2019

1. Petitioner/defendant No. 1 takes exception to the impugned order dated 27/11/2018 whereby learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon has rejected his application for further cross- examination of the plaintiff against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by him.

2. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 would submit that by order dated 2/08/2018, learned trial Court allowed the application filed by petitioner/defendant No. 1 for making amendment in the written statement, therefore, he is entitled for further cross-examination of the plaintiff with regard to the amended portion of the written statement.

3. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/plaintiff would seriously oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 and submit that defendant No. 1 has already cross-examined the plaintiff on the amended portion of the written statement also before the trial Court, as such, another opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff is not warranted and therefore, his application has rightly been rejected.

3

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records thoughtfully.

5. Since, learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by petitioner/defendant No. 1 to make amendment in the written statement by order dated 02/08/2018, therefore, in my considered opinion, petitioner/defendant No. 1 is entitled to cross-examine respondent No. 1/plaintiff with regard to the amended portion of the written statement and respondent No. 1/plaintiff is at liberty to make objection, if any, during the cross-examination.

6. The impugned order dated 27/11/2018 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 for cross-examination of plaintiff with regard to the amended portion of the written statement is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 2,500 to respondent No. 1/plaintiff.

7. Also, looking to the fact that the civil suit is pending since 19/10/2012 and there is no substantive progress in the trial, learned trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the civil suit within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court by e-mail/fax.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet