Disposed¶19

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Dwarka Parshad & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2025CM(M)/1177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order VII Rule 14(2) and 14(3) CPC; production/addition of documents at plaintiff's-evidence stage; placing quotations on record; supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court; judicious exercise of trial court discretion; impeachment of witness credibility in cross-examination; no real prejudice; fire-damage recovery suit against electricity distribution company; BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd v. Dwarka Parshad; CM(M) 1177/2025; High Court of Delhi; decided 09 July 2025; Manoj Jain.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of without interference with the Trial Court's order dated 30.04.2025, the Court declining to invoke its supervisory powers. ¶19

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Dwarka Parshad & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was disposed of without interference with the Trial Court's order dated 30.04.2025, the Court declining to invoke its supervisory powers.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court's order dated 30.04.2025 permitting the plaintiff, at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, to place on record the quotations prepared by Mr. Shamshad Ali reflected a judicious exercise of discretion, or whether the High Court's supervisory powers ought to be invoked against it.

¶18

Court's answer

It is difficult to prejudge that the quotations/report are manufactured or procured; matters would become clear only once the proposed witness enters the witness box and is permitted to make reference to the quotations allegedly prepared by him.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court merely permitted the plaintiff to place the quotations on record so that the witness could refer to them when he testified; defendant-BSES remains free to impeach the witness's testimony and creditworthiness by appropriate questions in cross-examination, and accordingly no real prejudice is caused to BSES.

¶16

Key takeaways

There is no compelling reason to invoke the High Court's supervisory powers, as the discretion of the learned Trial Court appears to have been exercised in a judicious manner.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil miscellaneous main petition (CM(M)) by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd challenging the Trial Court's order dated 30.04.2025, whereby the plaintiff (respondent no. 1, Dwarka Prashad) — suing BSES for Rs. 1,97,40,000/- as damages for a fire of 14.04.2022 allegedly caused by BSES's failure to remove extraneous material from the electricity pole serving his house — was permitted, at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, to place on record quotations prepared by his proposed witness Mr. Shamshad Ali (consultant, M/s Wood Green Constructions) under Order VII Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) CPC. Justice Manoj Jain held that whether the quotations are manufactured cannot be prejudged and will emerge in testimony; that BSES may impeach the witness's testimony and creditworthiness in cross-examination, causing no real prejudice; and that the Trial Court's discretion was exercised judiciously. Supervisory powers were declined; the petition and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09^th July, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1177/2025& CM APPL. 39715-39716/2025 BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshal Arora, Advocate. versus

¶6

DWARKA PARSHAD & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gaura with Mr. Vivek Gaur, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Khushi Sachdeva, Advocate for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

Respondent No. 1-Mr. Dwarka Prashad has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,97,40,000/- on account of the damages, he suffered from the accidental fire.

¶11

The fire in question took place on 14.04.2022.

¶12

According to plaintiff, the source and sole cause of fire was the pole, which led to distribution of electricity to his house. The fire was due to negligence on the part of the electricity provider i.e. BSES, as they had not removed the extraneous material such as cable TV fitting, hoardings etc. from such pole.

¶13

The plaintiff had also submitted several documents along with the plaint and, in the list of witnesses, he cited one valuer/contractor whom he wanted to examine in order to support his case.

¶14

Of course, the name of such valuer/contractor was not mentioned.

¶15

The case is already at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, and it was at that

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1177/2025 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.07.2025 14:30:14

¶18

¶19

stage of the case, that the plaintiff moved an application under Order VII Rule 14 (2) and Rule 14 (3) CPC.

¶20

He wanted to examine Mr. Shamshad Ali, who was working as consultant for M/s Wood Green Constructions . It is submitted that, said witness had prepared the quotations as per his expertise and said quotations remained with him under his care and custody during the preceding period. Now, since the abovesaid witness is to grace the witness box, an application was moved before the learned Trial Court with request to place on record such quotations prepared by said witness, Mr. Shamshad Ali.

¶21

Such application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.04.2025.

¶22

Such order is under challenge. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner/BSES apprehends that the quotations are manufactured ones and, therefore, there was no reason to have permitted such documents to be placed on record. He submits that, if at all, these were prepared before the institution of the suit, there was no one to prevent the plaintiff to have placed the same on record.

¶23

Fact, however, remains that the plaintiff has come up with a specific case and according to the case of the plaintiff, the negligence attributed on the part of the BSES is to the effect that the pole in question, through which the electricity was being supplied to the house of the plaintiff, was fitted with various hoardings, and fixtures which resulted in mishap in question.

¶24

Moreover, as per the list of the witnesses plaintiff wants to examine such valuer, albeit , as noticed already, the name of the valuer is not mentioned in the list.

¶25

Fact, however, remains, it is difficult to prejudge that such report is

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

CM(M) 1177/2025

¶28

¶29

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.07.2025 14:30:14

¶30

manufactured or procured one.

¶31

Things would become clear only once the abovesaid witness enters into witness box and is permitted to make reference to the quotations etc. which had been, allegedly, prepared by him.

¶32

Learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, has merely permitted the plaintiff to place abovesaid quotations on record so that when the witness enters into witness box, he is in a position to make reference to the abovesaid quotations prepared by him.

¶33

It is always open to defendant-BSES to impeach his testimony and credit worthiness by putting appropriate questions in cross-examination. 17. To that extent, there is no question of there being any real prejudice being caused to the defendant BSES.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court does not find any compelling reason to invoke its supervisory powers as the discretion seems to have been exercised by learned Trial Court in a judicious manner.

¶35

Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶36

All pending applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms

¶37

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶38

JULY 9, 2025/ sw/PB

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed CM(M) 1177/2025 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 1.07.2025 14:30:14

¶41

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Dwarka Parshad & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Dwarka Parshad & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Sood (Since Deceased Thr Lr) Vs Praveen Sood & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Neeraj Mittal and Ors.

Vijayant Kumar Singh Vs Smt Sneh Gakhar

Gita Khorana and Ors. Vs Punit Beriwala and Ors.

Priyanka Ailawadi Vs Saurabh Goel

Anil Singh Vs Pawan Gulati

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Ashok Kumar Sood (Since Deceased Thr Lr) Vs Praveen Sood & Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs Neeraj Mittal and Ors.

Kuria Singh Vs Narayan Singh

Shri Rajbir Jain Prop of M/S Shikha Enterprises Vs Paragon Paper Industries LLP. through Its Partner Shri Ajay Jain

Sunny @ Nand Kishore Gandhi Vs Guddi Khatun