Dismissed

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. Raj Bala & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jan 2018CM(M)/10/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of two civil applications under the Civil Procedure Code. The court held objections regarding witness affidavits are for examination during cross-examination and found the challenge frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The pending application is also dismissed.

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Raj Bala & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 10/2018 and CM 213/2018

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. M.L. Kalra, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

RAJ BALA & ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Through

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA O R D E R % 08.01.2018

¶10

The petition at hand challenges the order dated 18.08.2017 of the Additional District Judge whereby two applications of the petitioners (defendants before the Civil Judge) were dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-, first, an application under Order XIX Rule 3 CPC read with Order XIII and Section 151 CPC and the other, under Order XVI read with Section 151 CPC. By the second said application, objection had been taken to the list of witnesses being allowed to be filed by the opposite party (plaintiffs before the civil Court) belatedly. The trial judge has noted in the order that the list of witnesses alongwith affidavits were taken on record on 18.11.2016 subject to costs being imposed which were tendered by the opposite party and accepted by the petitioners. The discretion having been exercised judicially and the condition of costs having been duly complied with,

¶11

page 1 of 2

¶12

CM(M) 10/2018

¶13

the objection reiterated through the petition at hand is found to be wholly frivolous.

¶14

As far as the other application is concerned, the petitioners take exception to the affidavits of three witnesses which were submitted seeking their rejection on the ground that they do not satisfy the requirement of Order XIX Rule 3 CPC. The affidavits have already been tendered in evidence and the witnesses are yet to be crossexamined by the petitioner through counsel. All objections with regard to the admissibility of the said affidavits in evidence or relevancy of the documents filed therewith can be taken during the course of deposition under cross-examination. The application has been appropriately considered and rejected by the additional District Judge through the impugned order.

¶15

The petition is found to be devoid of substance and is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs.20,000/-. The pending application also stands dismissed.

¶16

R.K.GAUBA, J

¶17

JANUARY 08, 2018 Yg CM(M) 10/2018

¶18

page 2 of 2

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. Raj Bala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. Raj Bala & Ors.

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

Pushpa L Tolani Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Pritam Singh Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

M/S United Dairies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar Jain

Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Vs Alok Mehndiratta & Ors.

Kanwal Nain Singh Mokha Vs Jayti Khurana

Kanwal Nain Singh Mokh Vs Rekha Khurana

Sant Singh Vs Jagjeet Singh Sawhney (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs

Rashmi @ Savita & Anr. Vs Meer Chand & Ors.

Sangeeta Purohit Vs Sheikh Vajiuddin Sabri & Anr.

Sukhbir Bhardwaj Vs Jagbir Singh & Ors. (the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Babu & Ors.

Ramesh Rao Vs Bimal Prasad Jain

Kulvinder Singh Vs Mohd Masoom

Gati Ltd. Vs Balkishan Sharma & Ors.