Allowed

Multivac India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Artistic Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC9 Nov 2016C.R.P./86/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC where the trial court had closed evidence due to petitioner's delay. The Court granted a final opportunity to lead evidence upon payment of costs but refused further adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; one final opportunity to lead evidence granted subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- costs. No further adjournment granted.

Multivac India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Artistic Handicrafts… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 86/2016

¶4

MULTIVAC INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vineet Sinha, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S ARTISTIC HANDICRAFTS PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Rajesh Yadav & Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH O R D E R % 09.11.2016

¶8

By the present petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 18.02.2016 by which the plaintiff/petitioner’s evidence was closed.

¶9

The trial court by the impugned order noted that issues were framed on 16.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has taken five adjournments for giving evidence, namely, on 25.12.2014, 19.02.2015, 22.08.2015, 12.10.2015 and 07.12.2015. On 18.02.2016 also no witness was present for the petitioner.

¶10

By the present petition, it is pointed out that the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared on 18.02.2016 and had also filed an affidavit by way of evidence of the petitioner dated 07.12.2015 and has paid the entire cost. The petitioner had also sought a pass over before the trial court but the trial court had refused to pass over the case. It is also stated that in the month of April, 2014 the authorised representative of the petitioner, namely

¶11

Mr.Maruti Garg had refused to depose on behalf of the petitioner and hence the petitioner was constrained to appoint a new authorised representative for contesting the case. It is further stated that the director of the company was out of the country. On this basis, the petitioner seeks one final opportunity to lead evidence.

¶12

Though, the conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is pursing the matter in a casual and lethargic manner, however, in the interest of justice and subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/-, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted one final opportunity to lead evidence.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are only two witnesses to be examined and that witness shall be brought to the court on its own responsibility.

¶14

It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of leading evidence.

¶15

With the above, the present petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶16

JAYANT NATH, J.

¶17

NOVEMBER 09, 2016/v

Multivac India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Artistic Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multivac India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Artistic Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harcharan Singh Sethi Vs Harbhajan Singh Sethi & Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Sharma Vs Anupam Srivastava (Cmd BSNL New Delhi) & Ors.

Deepa Bhatt Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

L & T Finance Limited Vs Deepak H. & Ors.

Parkash Singh & Ors. Vs C.Viswanath

Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs Jan Bhawna Samaj Sudhar Samiti