Disposed¶27

Munni Devi v. Tele Wood

Delhi HC8 Apr 2025CM(M)/543/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Munni Devi v. Tele Wood; CM(M) 543/2023; CM APPL. 20740/2025; High Court of Delhi; Manoj Jain, J.; decision 8 April 2025; rebuttal evidence; Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Trial Court order dated 02.08.2022; Patwari / Revenue Department witness; disposal with direction to ignore rebuttal evidence; suit at stage of final arguments; expedited disposal; next date 14.08.2025 cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Petition CM(M) 543/2023 along with pending applications (including CM APPL. 20740/2025) disposed of; Trial Court directed to ignore the rebuttal evidence led pursuant to its order dated 02.08.2022 and to dispose of the suit (at the stage of final arguments) as expeditiously as possible; the next date of 14.08.2025 cancelled. ¶27

Munni Devi Vs Tele Wood — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 02.08.2022 permitting the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC should be set aside (challenged by the defendant via CM(M) 543/2023); ultimately resolved by consent-based disposal rather than adjudication on merits.

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the overall facts and circumstances, and since the petitioner is no longer interested in relying on the rebuttal evidence, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the learned Trial Court shall ignore such evidence led in rebuttal and, the case being at the stage of final arguments, dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 543/2023, decided 8 April 2025 (oral): Petition by the defendant (Munni Devi) challenging the Trial Court's order dated 02.08.2022, which had allowed the plaintiff (Tele Wood) to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. During pendency, the Court had permitted recording of the proposed Revenue Department witness (Patwari), subject to the matter remaining in abeyance, and that witness was examined. The respondent/plaintiff then filed CM APPL. 20740/2025 under Section 151 CPC offering no objection to the petition being allowed if the Trial Court proceeded ignoring the rebuttal evidence, the suit having reached final arguments. As the petitioner too was no longer interested in relying on the rebuttal evidence, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the Trial Court ignore the rebuttal evidence and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible; the next date of 14.08.2025 was cancelled. The legality of the impugned order was not adjudicated on merits.

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 8^th April, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 543/2023

¶5

MUNNI DEVI .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Sarvesh Chouwdhary, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. Jyotirmay Vasishtt and Mr. Sumit Srivastava, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

TELE WOOD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain and Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

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

¶11

CM(M) 543/2023 & CM APPL. 20740/2025 (filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 151 CPC)

¶12

Plaintiff (respondent herein) had moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking to lead evidence in rebuttal by moving an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. Such application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2022.

¶13

Defendant, feeling aggrieved, has challenged the abovesaid order.

¶14

During pendency of the present petition, this Court had permitted the learned Trial Court to record evidence of the proposed witness i.e. one official from Revenue Department ( Patwari ) but with direction that the matter would be kept in abeyance till further orders

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

CM(M) 543/2023 1

¶17

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 9.04.2025 18:14:15

¶18

are passed by this Court. It is apprised that such witness has already been examined.

¶19

The present application has now been moved by respondent/plaintiff wherein it has been contended that in order to avoid any further delay in the matter, the plaintiff would have no objection if the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the matter, while ignoring the abovesaid rebuttal evidence which was recorded/sought to be recorded by virtue of impugned order dated 02.08.2022.

¶20

All in all, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that she would have no objection if the present petition is allowed. She, however, supplements that a request be made to learned Trial Court to adjudicate the suit which would now be at the stage of final arguments.

¶21

The next date before the learned Trial Court is stated to be 09.05.2025.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured that he would render due assistance and cooperation to the learned Trial Court and prays that in view of the fact that the prayer has been conceded to, the present petition may be disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner is no longer interested in relying on the rebuttal evidence, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the learned Trial Court shall ignore such evidence led in rebuttal and since the case is at the stage of final arguments, the suit be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

CM(M) 543/2023 2

¶26

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 9.04.2025 18:14:15

¶27