Disposed

Jaspal Singh v. Rajender Paul Vermani

Delhi HC19 Sept 2024CM(M)/3363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trial court had closed the defendant's right to cross-examine for unpaid costs under Section 35B CPC. On consent of respondent's counsel, the High Court disposed of the petition granting one final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, with Rs.50,000 total cost payable to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

One final opportunity to cross-examine PW-1; Rs.20,000 unpaid cost plus Rs.30,000 additional cost payable to plaintiff by 25.09.2024.

Jaspal Singh Vs Rajender Paul Vermani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~96

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision^: 19^th September, 2024

¶4

- CM(M) 3363/2024, CM APPL. 52485/2024 & CM APPL. 52486/2024

¶5

JASPAL SINGH .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rohit Singh with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shah, Mr. Sujit Kumar, Mr. Mohit Saini, Mr. Naveen Kumar and Ms. Kanika Saini, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

RAJENDER PAUL VERMANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aakash Sethi with Mr. Ami Sisodia, Mr. Prakhar Sharma and Mr. Rohit Arora, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

Petitioner is defendant before the learned Trial Court.

¶12

He was granted opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff, subject to the imposition of cost.

¶13

However, such cost was not cleared. The defendant rather sought adjournment on the ground that he was unable to engage a new counsel. Keeping in mind the fact that the cost was unpaid, the learned Trial Court closed the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and the case was fixed for final arguments as the right to lead any defendant’s evidence was also held as not surviving anymore, in view of Section 35B CPC.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

CM(M) 3363/2024

¶16

¶17

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 15:29:35

¶18

Pursuant to the issuance of notice, respondent Sh. Rajender Paul Vermani is also present in person and his counsel Sh. Aakash Sethi has also, in addition, joined the proceedings through video conferencing.

¶19

During course of the arguments, Sh. Sethi, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that there is no merit or substance in the present petition and though the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity but in order to avoid any possible complication in future, he would have no objection if one last and final opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1 Sh. Rajender Paul Vermani, subject to imposition of further cost. He also submits that the petitioner may also be directed to examine himself or any of his witness in a time-bound manner.

¶20

The previous unpaid cost is stated to be of Rs.20,000/-.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though his intention was never malafide , he is even ready to bear any further cost.

¶22

When asked, the defendant claimed that he would be entering into witness box in his defence and would also be examining one Sh. D.K. Malhotra. He also states that he would not take any unnecessary adjournment and would be present whenever the Court fixes the date for his evidence.

¶23

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 3363/2024

¶26

¶27

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 15:29:35

¶28

and the gracious concession given by Sh. Sethi, learned counsel for the respondent, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶29

(i) The petitioner i.e. the defendant Jaspal Singh is granted one last and final opportunity to further cross-examine PW-1 Sh. Rajender Paul Vermani.

¶30

(ii) The next date before the learned Trial Court is stated to be 25^th instant and the learned Trial Court would permit the defendant/learned counsel for the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. It is assured by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cross-examination would be concluded same day.

¶31

(iii) Petitioner would ensure that he makes himself available for DE (examination/cross-examination) and also brings his said witness before the learned Trial Court. He would abide by the directions and the dates in this regard to be given by the learned Trial Court.

¶32

(iv) The previous unpaid cost of Rs.20,000/- be cleared on 25.09.2024 and for causing further delay in the matter, petitioner i.e. the defendant Jaspal Singh is also burdened with additional cost of Rs.30,000/- which be also cleared on the next date of hearing i.e. 25.09.2024 along with the previous unpaid cost.

¶33

(v) Keeping in mind the age of the plaintiff Sh. Rajender Paul

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

CM(M) 3363/2024

¶36

¶37

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 15:29:35

¶38

Vermani, the entire such cost of Rs.50,000/- would go to the plaintiff Sh. Rajender Paul Vermani only.

¶39

The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶40

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶41

SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 st

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed CM(M) 3363/2024 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:2 0.09.2024 15:29:35

¶44

Jaspal Singh v. Rajender Paul Vermani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspal Singh v. Rajender Paul Vermani

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

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Makino International Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Ganesh Industries Vs M/S Balaji Industries

Kamlavati Vs Indu Aggarwal

Land and Development Office Vs Gurdeep Singh Chatha

Nawal Kishore Khandelwal Vs Anuradha & Ors.

Babita Devi Vs Ram Kripal Mall

Shree Balaji Lamination Vs Sr Goyal Polymers

Ankur Mutreja Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

City Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Makino International Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Ganesh Industries Vs M/S Balaji Industries

Kamlavati Vs Indu Aggarwal

Pratap Ranjan & Anr. Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Ashu Sharma & Anr. Vs Framework Interiors

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Mangal Enterprises & Ors.