Disposed

Renu v. Manish Kumar

Delhi HC21 Feb 2018CM(M)/1276/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court intervened in a family dispute to permit the petitioner to serve ten interrogatories to the respondent witness remotely due to cross-examination delays. The Court directed the Family Court to record the petitioner's affidavit evidence immediately and expedite the hearing of the longstanding petition on February 24, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to serve ten interrogatories on PW-1 via affidavit; directed Family Court to record affidavit evidence and expedite hearing.

Renu Vs Manish Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1276/2017 & CM No.40950/2017

¶4

R ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. I.J.S. Mehra, Ms.Tabbassun Firdause, Advocates along with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

M ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Dayal, Advocate along with respondent in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 21.02.2018 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14^th September, 2017 insofar as the learned Family Court has not permitted the petitioner to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination and the evidence by way of affidavit of the petitioner has not been taken on record.

¶10

The Family Court has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for recalling PW-1 for further cross-examination on the ground that the crossexamination of PW-1 continued on four sessions spread over a period of one and a half year and the application has been filed just to delay the petition which is more than five years old. With respect to the petitioner’s evidence by way of affidavit, the Family Court has not taken the affidavit on record and directed the petitioner to file a precise and concise affidavit.

¶11

With respect to the prayer for recalling PW-1 for further crossexamination, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the learned Family Court rejected the prayer for

¶12

recalling of PW-1 for further cross-examination. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is permitted to serve ten interrogatories (questions) on affidavit to PW-1 before the Family Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 24^th February, 2018 and PW-1 shall answer the said interrogatories by a handwritten affidavit before the Family Court. The learned Family Court shall permit PW-1 to sit in the Court room and write the answers to the interrogatories on affidavit without consulting his lawyer or any other person. The handwritten reply to the interrogatories on affidavit be submitted before the learned Family Court and a copy thereof be furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. PW-1 shall furnish the copy of the handwritten affidavit to counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, get the original affidavit attested by Oath Commissioner which shall be taken on record of the learned Family Court.

¶13

With respect to the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the same be taken on record by learned Family Court on the date fixed i.e. 24^th February, 2018. The petitioner shall represent her evidence by way of affidavit dated 14^th September, 2017 before the learned Family Court on the date fixed i.e. 24^th February, 2018.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court be directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the petition considering that the petition was filed in 2011. The order dated 14^th September, 2017 reflects that the Family Court is already conscious of this petition being five year old. The learned Family Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to counsels for both the parties and expedite the hearing of this matter. 6. This petition is disposed of on the above terms. The pending application is disposed of.

¶15

The record of the Family Court be returned back forthwith through a

¶16

special messenger considering proceedings before the Family Court are listed on 24^th February, 2018.

¶17

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

¶18

J.R. MIDHA, J.

¶19

FEBRUARY 21, 2018 dk

Renu v. Manish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu v. Manish Kumar

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

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs Poonam Lata and Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Jatinder Pal Singh & Anr.

Ali Jan Alvi Vs Anand Prakash Gupta

Om Prakash Sakhuja ( Deceased) Thr Lrs Vs Ved Prakash & Ors.

Naheem Khan Vs Aman Jain

Surjan (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nidhi Goyal Vs Jai Bhagwan

Kaushalya Vs Pawan Kumar Maini

Samrat Kumar Vs Bhagat Singh @ Pinto & Ors. (the Icici Lombard Insurance Company)

Yogesh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Raj Sharma Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insureance Co. Ltd. Vs Devki Nadan Kumar & Anr.

Rohit Malhotra Vs Anand Kumar Chaurasiya & Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyam Bahadur Gharti Magar & Ors.