Allowed

M/S Jsk Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh Sharma & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Nov 2017FAO(OS)/241/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of an application to examine additional defence witnesses. The order set aside the impugned decision, directed examination of witnesses via affidavits, and imposed costs while ensuring no further adjournments. Rebuttal evidence was permitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeal allowed; Rs. 25,000 costs imposed; direction to file affidavits and list for evidence recording.

M/S Jsk Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Sharma & Anr. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 241/2017

¶4

M/S JSK HOTELS PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Agrawal, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

RAMESH SHARMA & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Namita Mathews with Ms. Poorva Pant, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

O R D E R

16.11.2017

The appellant before us assailed the order dated 24^th May, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby I.A. No.10100/2016, filed by the appellants herein (defendants in CS(OS) No.1101/2010, for examining the three witnesses in support of the defence, was rejected.

¶13

The application appears to have been filed while the first defence was still in witness box. The impugned order dated 24^th May, 2017 has been primarily rejected for the fact that the defendants have not given sufficient reasons for examination of the witnesses and also not given reasons as to why the application was filed at that stage.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) submits that she has taken instructions to inform this Court that in FAO(OS) No.241/2017 Pg. 1 of 3

¶15

case this Court issues time bound directions for completion of the evidence of the appellants/defendants and subject to payment of costs, the respondent would not object to the grant of prayer made by the appellants by way of I.A. No.10100/2016 in CS(OS) No.1101/2010.

¶16

We are informed by the parties that by an order dated 4^th December, 2015, the evidence in the suit was being recorded before Sh. Harpreet Singh, Advocate (Local Commissioner) who was paid Rs.2,00,000/- as fee. We are also informed that three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and one witness on behalf of the defendant stand examined. Therefore, substantial amount has already been paid as fees by an order dated 4^th December, 2015 to the Local Commissioner.

¶17

We are of the view that the stand taken by the respondent is fair.

¶18

In view thereof, it is directed that the orders dated 24^th May, 2017 rejecting I.A. No.10100/2016 is hereby set aside and the appeal is hereby allowed, subject to the payment of Rs.25000/- as costs which shall be paid within two weeks from today.

¶19

We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Examination-in-Chief of three additional witnesses by way of affidavits is ready and would be got attested, which would be positively filed within two weeks from today. The same shall be so filed positively.

¶20

Pg. 2 of 3

¶21

FAO(OS) No.241/2017

¶22

List on 6^th December, 2017 before the Local Commissioner for fixing the date for recording the evidence of the remaining evidence of the parties.

¶23

The appellants shall ensure that no adjournment shall be taken for completion of the evidence.

¶24

We make it clear that in case the respondent/plaintiff requires, it would be open for it to lead rebuttal evidence.

¶25

It shall be open to the learned Single Judge to order additional fees for the Local Commissioner, if so deemed appropriate, after its conclusion.

¶26

This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶27

Dasti to the parties.

¶28

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 /pmc

¶31

FAO(OS) No.241/2017

¶32

Pg. 3 of 3

M/S Jsk Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jsk Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Dewan Vs Shalini Kumar and Ors.

Jai Kumar Arya & Ors. Vs Chhaya Devi & Anr.

M/S Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sahiba Anand

M/S Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prehlad Singh Sethi

Ramesh Mardia & Anr. Vs M/S Koxan India & Anr.

Suresh Shah Vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Kuldeep Singh Awla & Anr. Vs Sarjit Singh Awla

Kyk Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Vivek Kochher & Anr.

Vijay Kumar Diwakar Vs State of (Nct) of Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shyamal Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs Chairman of National Disaster Management Authority and Ors.

Shakuntla Gautam Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Rachna Sahni Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rachna Sahni Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.