was granted to Mr. Malhotra to appear for cross-examination and a peremptory order was passed that if the evidence was not concluded, the right of Mr. Malhotra to lead further evidence would be closed. This order was appealed against by Mr. Malhotra. Vide order dated 8th February, 2019, the Division Bench had permitted Mr. Malhotra to conclude his evidence within 45 days. Dates were fixed on 25th February, 2019 and 27th February, 2019, on which dates he failed to appear. The Joint Registrar again adjourned the matter to 13th March, 2019 and 14th March, 2019 and again to 20th March, 2019. Despite this opportunity having been given, Mr. Malhotra failed to appear before the Court. Only PW-2 –his sister appeared and adduced evidence. The evidence of Mr. Malhotra was, accordingly, closed. 32. Mrs. Dhawan appeared as DW-1 and was cross-examined. In this suit, the entire basis of Mr. Malhotra‟s prayer for recovery of Rs.6.05 crores is the MoU dated 23rd December, 2013. The original MoU has not been produced. None of the witnesses have appeared on behalf of Mr. Malhotra for leading evidence. This Court has also arrived at a finding in CS (OS) 984/2014 above that the only admitted document being the agreement to sell and the sale consideration having been mentioned in the same, the plea in respect of the MoU is untenable.
