Delhi District Court
Savita Sharma vs . Taneja Developers & Infrastructure on 1 July, 2013
Savita Sharma Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL : ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE (CENTRAL) 08, TIS HAZARI, DELHI
C.S. No. 262/12
Savita Sharma
Vs.
Taneja Developers & Infrastructure
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose off an application moved under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC by the defendant for recalling PW1 and PW2 for cross examination.
2. Ld.counsel for defendant submitted that negotiations were going on between the plaintiff and defendant. The husband of the plaintiff also spoke to the counsel for defendant and as the negotiations were going on, therefore, the matter was adjourned. Ld.counsel submitted that the Predecessor of this court was not aware about the proceedings going on and also about the negotiations for effecting compromise and accordingly the true state of affair could not be brought on record, resulting into the closure of the opportunity of the defendant to cross examine PW1 and PW2. Ld.counsel submitted that cross examination of PW1 and PW2 is very much necessary for the just decision. If such right is not given to the defendant, it will result into mis carriage of C. S. No.262/12 1 Savita Sharma Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure justice, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the defendant, whereas if the application is allowed, the plaintiff will not suffer. It is prayed that the application be allowed.
3. Ld.counsel for plaintiff strongly opposed the application and submitted that the issues in this case were framed on 21.11.09 and the affidavit by way of evidence was filed on 20.3.10. The witnesses were examined in chief but the cross was deferred. Ld.counsel submitted that infact on 20.3.10 also the counsel for defendant was not available, hence the matter was adjourned to 18.5.10. On 18.5.10 both the witnesses were present but the defendant sought adjournment as main counsel was not available. The matter was adjourned to 1.9.10. On 1.9.10 it was reported that talks for compromise were going on, hence the matter was adjourned to 3.11.10. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 07.04.11 and then for 25.5.11. On that date Ld.PO was on leave and matter was adjourned to 3.8.11. Matter was again adjourned as the counsel for defendant was not available. The last opportunity for cross examination was given and matter was listed for 21.9.11. Again none appeared on behalf of defendant. Matter was adjourned to 21.10.11. On 21.10.11 again counsel for defendant did not appear, though the witnesses were present and therefore, the opportunity was closed and the case was fixed for defendant evidence for 23.12.11. On 23.12.11 affidavit of evidence on behalf of defendant was not filed and matter was adjourned to 16.3.12. On 16.3.12 defendant did not lead its evidence and cost of Rs.4000/- was imposed and matter was adjourned to 17.5.12. On 17.5.12 Ld.Presiding Officer was on C. S. No.262/12 2 Savita Sharma Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure leave and matter was adjourned to 23.8.12. it was on this date when the present application was moved. Ld.counsel submitted that in fact from the very beginning the only intention of defendant is to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other without having any intention either to settle the dispute or to get it finally disposed off. It is prayed that under the circumstances when sufficient opportunities have already been granted to the defendant to cross examine the witnesses, the application be dismissed.
4. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that no doubt that talks for compromise were going on at one stage but that does not mean that the talks will continue for indefinite period and the defendant will not cross examine the witnesses or will stop appearing in the court. Record shows that the case was fixed for plaintiff evidence specifically but the defendant did not take care either to settle the dispute or to cross examine the witnesses. Record shows that many opportunities were given to the defendant to appear and cross examine the witness but he did not avail the same. The court was thereafter left with no option but to close the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The fact that defendant was not serious is also evident from the fact that even after the evidence was closed and case was fixed for defendant evidence, no efforts what so ever were made by the defendant to either lead his evidence or to get the order set aside. It was only after a cost of Rs.4000/- was imposed upon the defendant to lead his own evidence that defendant woke up and moved this application. Under the C. S. No.262/12 3 Savita Sharma Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application, the same is dismissed.
VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE-08 CENTRAL, DELHI Announced in open court on 01.07.13 C. S. No.262/12 4