Single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order declining permission to examine additional witnesses in a suit for possession. The court held the challenge was a dilatory tactic and an abuse of process.
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~49
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R % 20.01.2016 C.M. No.2050/2016 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
CM(M) 55/2016 & C.M.No.2051/2016
Order impugned before this court is the order dated 15.9.2015 vide which the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to examine the additional witnesses has been declined and rightly so.
The present suit is a suit for possession filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Two witnesses were examined by the defendant. It was at this stage that the present application under Section 151 CPC was filed seeking permission of the Court to place on record the testimony of three more witnesses.
Record shows that the matter was first fixed for defendant evidence on 07.8.2014 when testimony of DW-1 was recorded in part. Matter was renotified for 25.9.2014. On 13.11.2014 the matter was fixed for remaining defendant evidence. On that date no witness of the defendant was present. Last opportunity was granted to the defendant
to lead his entire evidence. This was subject to payment of cost. The matter was again re-adjourned to 03.01.2015 on which date again no evidence was present on behalf of the defendant. Since no witness was present thus defendant evidence was closed.
The defendant did not stop his delaying tactics. He moved an application under order XVIII Rule 17 CPC on 29.6.2015. The Trial court allowed the evidence of DW-2. He was the only witness which was permitted to be examined. Vehement contention now raised before this Court is that the record of the Election Commission is necessary as it shows that in the list of properties which the plaintiff has submitted he had not shown the present property owned by him which has to be read against him.
This argument has been considered and rightly answered by the Trial court noting the fact that the present suit is a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and what is relevant is not the title of the property but the possession.
In this background, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. This Court is of the view that this petition is nothing but a dilatory tactic on the part of the petitioner. This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 20, 2016 ndn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether permission for examination of additional witnesses should be allowed when evidence was closed due to lack of attendance.
Whether the Election Commission record is necessary to prove possession in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the impugned order allowing additional witnesses was improper or a dilatory tactic.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAJ LAXMI GUPTA
MUNNAWAR HASSAN
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
