Dismissed

Chetan Puri and Anr. v. Sunita Rekhi and Ors.

Delhi HC21 May 2024FAO(OS)/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court held that an interlocutory order allowing further cross-examination for missing bank statements is a procedural decision, not a 'judgment' under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. Consequently, the appeal is not maintainable, and the appellants are granted liberty to challenge the order at the final decree stage.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to assail the order at the final stage under Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC.

Chetan Puri and Anr. Vs Sunita Rekhi and Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 74/2024 & CM APPL. 30588-30589/2024

¶4

CHETAN PURI AND ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Rawal and Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Advocates

¶5

versus SUNITA REKHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Aquib Ali, Ms. Amreen Khatiq and Mr. Shahnawaz, Advocates Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Varun Tyagi and Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocates for R-2 % Date of Decision: 21^st May, 2024

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶8

J U D G M E N T(ORAL)

¶9

CM APPL. 30589/2024 (for exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶12

FAO(OS) 74/2024 & CM APPL. 30588/2024

¶13

Present appeal filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act,1966 (‘Act of 1966’) challenges the impugned order dated 22^nd April, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (OS)

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 2.05.2024 18:39:47

¶16

FAO(OS) 74/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶17

1789/2006, whereby two separate interlocutory applications¹ filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, to recall Appellant No.1, i.e., DW-2 for further cross-examination has been allowed.

¶18

The underlying suit has been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, seeking partition of the immovable properties on the assertion that the same form part of an HUF. 3. It is a matter of record that during the cross-examination of Appellant No. 1 i.e., DW-2 the counsel for Respondent No. 2 had made enquiries with respect to the bank account statement of Appellant No. 2. DW-2 during the cross-examination stated that the bank statements are in his possession and he can produce the same before the Court. Accordingly, DW-2 was directed to produce the bank statements for the period starting from 01^st January, 2011 till date. Admittedly, DW-2 filed the bank statements on 06^th June, 2023, albeit, after the completion of his cross-examination.

¶19

In these circumstances, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate interlocutory applications seeking to recall DW-2 for cross-examining him on the entries in the aforesaid bank statements. 5. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22^nd April, 2024 allowed the said applications and granted one opportunity for further crossexamination of DW-2 to the limited extent of the bank statement. The learned Single Judge has directed that no question beyond the bank statement shall be permitted to be put to DW-2.

¶20

Learned senior counsel for the Appellants states that the grounds pleaded by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the interlocutory applications for

¶21

1 I.A Nos. 18377/2023 and 19159/2023

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 2.05.2024 18:39:47

¶24

FAO(OS) 74/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶25

seeking further cross-examination of DW-2 do not justify the recall. He states that the legal process was not followed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for seeking the production of the bank statement and therefore, Appellant No. 1 cannot be directed to step into the witness box again. He states that Appellant No. 1 apprehends that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not conclude the cross-examination in a time-bound manner and cause undue harassment to the witness.

¶26

In reply, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 state that they undertake that they will not seek any adjournment before the Local Commissioner and conclude the cross-examination of DW-2 as per the directions in the impugned order. They further state that they will conclude the cross-examination in a maximum of two hearings between both of them. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned interlocutory order is a procedural order and does not satisfy the test of a judgment within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act of 1966. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in permitting further cross-examination of DW-2 during the course of trial does not warrant any interference in the present appeal. The present appeal is therefore not maintainable.

¶27

At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the Appellants states that the Appellants may be granted liberty to assail the impugned order at the stage of final judgment. We accordingly, clarify that the Appellants will be at liberty to challenge the impugned order at the final stage in accordance with Order XLIII Rule 1A CPC, in case the final decree is against the Appellants. We further direct that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well are bound down to the statement made before this Court.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 2.05.2024 18:39:47

¶30

FAO(OS) 74/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶31

The present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty reserved to the Appellants.

¶32

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 21, 2024/ hp/AKT

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 2.05.2024 18:39:47

¶36

FAO(OS) 74/2024 Page 4 of 4

Chetan Puri and Anr. v. Sunita Rekhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Puri and Anr. v. Sunita Rekhi and 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

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs Raj Vidya Kender Rvk & Ors.

Mrs Rajni Kapur and Anr. Vs Mr Devinder Kumar Diwan and Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Davender Kumar Relan & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Pal & Ors. Vs Dr. Jagdish Bansal through His Attorney Mr. Anil Goyal

Paresh Dandona Vs Sukruti Dugal & Ors.

Vishal Gautam Vs Mona Sharma

Ms Veeneta Since Deceased through Lrs Vs Ms Jyoti Gupta

Pankaj Sawhney Vs Suman Sawhney & Ors.

Satya Prakash Ravidas Vs Raj Vidya Kender Rvk & Ors.

Up State Bridge Corporation Limited Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Apeejay School, Sheikh Sarai Vs Deepak Raj & Anr.

Sachin Alang & Anr. Vs Union of India through the Secretary Department of Health Research

Aviaxpert Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ai Airport Services Ltd. & Anr.

P C Hembram & Ors. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies & Anr.