The Delhi High Court by mutual consent of both the parties, allowed the Petitioner/Plaintiff to submit an affidavit of witnesses as part of Examination in chief, post order given by Trial court denying the same.
Title- Vijay Kumar v. C.S Valsala Kumaran Nair
Decided on: 06.10.2023
+ CM(M) 1392/2018
Introduction
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution (Power of Superintendence over all the courts by the High Court). The Delhi HC by mutual consent of both the parties, allowed the Petitioner/Plaintiff to submit an affidavit of new witnesses as part of Examination in Chief, post order given by the Trial court denying the same.
Facts of the Case
This Petition disputes the truth, validity, or honesty of the order given on 13th of August, 2018 and 17th of September, 2018 which was passed by the Hon’ble Additional District Judge-02, West, Delhi in a Civil Suit with bearing no. 116/27/15 (New No. 609668/2016).
The said suit was titled “Vijay Kumar v. C.S. Valsala Kumaran Nair”. The Petitioner in the present case was the original Plaintiff and the Respondent was the original Defendant in the aforementioned civil suit.
The petitioner had requested the trial court to reconsider their decision made on 13th of August 2018 however the request was also declined by the court vide its order dated, 17th of September, 2018.
The previous decision given in August had closed the plaintiff’s right to submit an affidavit of witnesses as part of their Examination in chief.
The civil suit bearing no. 116/27/15 was filed by Petitioner/Plaintiff Vijay Kumar against Respondent/Defendant C.S. Valsala Kumaran Nair for recovery of a total amount of Rs. 48,482,95/- under Order XXXVII of C.P.C [Summary Suit].
Court Judgement and Analysis
Delhi High Court in this matter set aside the Judgement dated 13th of August, 2018 and 17th of September, 2018 through mutual consent of both the parties agreeing to some mutual terms-
The plaintiff agreed that concerning the list of the witnesses filed as annexure P-7 to this petition, he does not propose to examine the witness listed at serial No. 3, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and would only be examining the rest.
He also stated that no other witness is proposed to be examined, and he agreed to duly cooperate with the trial court in recording of the evidence and not seek adjournments. The counsel for the defendant also agreed with the terms proposed by the plaintiff.
Hence, the court allowed the plaintiff to file an affidavit of proposed witnesses within four weeks. And the court held that both the parties are bound down to the statements made before the Judges.
Interim orders were laid vacated, pending applications were disposed of and the parties were directed to appear before the Trial court on the given date, the Trial court was requested to fix the matter by recording the evidence of the plaintiff on the said date.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
click here to view the judgement