Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajiv Bhatnagar vs State & Ors on 30 May, 2024
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 59/2019
RAJIV BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sindhu Sinha and Ms. Binky
Boruah
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 30.05.2024 I.A.31239/2024(under Section 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 seeking following prayers:-
"a. Clarify that the right of the Respondent No. 4/ Applicant beyond his personal cross examination has not been closed vide the report of Ld. Local Commissioner dated 18.12.2023, the same being non-adjudicatory in nature.
b. Clarify that basis the aforesaid misconceived and is interpreted technical objection of the Petitioner, the Application of the Respondent No. 4/ Applicant seeking production of the Original MoPS dated 18.07.2017 (for the purpose of leading expert evidence) has not become infructuous."
2. It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 has filed an Application No. I.A. 22939/2023 seeking directions to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the original MoFS dated 18.07.2017 for the purposes of forensic This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/06/2024 at 23:26:40 examination of the signatures on the alleged Will dated 26.09.2017 of the father i.e., Late Mr. Pratyush Bhartia of respondent No. 4 in order to lead the expert evidence in the present case. However, the said application is still pending adjudication and the respondent No. 4's right to lead the evidence has been closed vide Report dated 18.12.2023 and the said Application No. I.A. 22939/2023 has become infructuous.
3. It is submitted on 18.12.2023, the counsel for the respondent No. 4 had informed the Local Commissioner through video conferencing that the respondent No. 4 had come to Delhi from his present residence in Goa and his evidence may be closed as far as the respondent No. 4's cross-examination is concerned. However, the right to lead further evidence by the respondent No. 4, has been closed by the Local Commissioner vide Report dated 18.12.2023.
4. Therefore, the present application has been filed seeking clarification of the Report dated 18.12.2023.
5. Submissions heard.
6. There is no confusion in the Report dated 18.12.2023 of the learned Local Commissioner and no clarification is required to be made.
7. The application is accordingly dismissed.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J MAY 30, 2024/PT This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/06/2024 at 23:26:40