Allowed

Devron Ascenda Private Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (Rrvpnl)

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2021CW/3219/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Commercial Court order denying an opportunity to examine a witness due to illness. The High Court allowed the petition, permitting the examination of one witness while directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to examine one witness on 6th December 2021 and directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs.

Devron Ascenda Private Limited Vs Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3219/2021

¶3

Devron Ascenda Private Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Rajneesh Singhvi, Having Its Registered Office Address At 24, Narpat Nagar (Amar Nagar), Opposite Luni Panchayat Samiti, Jodhpur Rajasthan 342001.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (Rrvpnl), Having Its Registered Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur - 302005.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Punit Singhvi, Adv. Mr.Ayush Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.L.Gupta, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

10/11/2021

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 11^th February, 2021 passed by the Commercial Court No.3 in Civil Case No.103/2018 titled as Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Devron Ascenda Pvt. Ltd.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed in the instant petition that the defendant should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in the suit as he was prevented by sufficient reasons for not adducing evidence on the date fixed by the Commercial Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was sub-judice before the Commercial Court and issues were framed on 5^th February, 2011 and further case was posted for

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-3219/2021]

¶17

evidence of the plaintiff and as such evidence of the plaintiff was completed on 10^th December, 2019 and thereafter case was fixed for evidence of the present petitioner-defendant.

¶18

Learned counsel submitted that opportunity was granted by the Commercial Court on two occasions to lead evidence and as such the defendant produced his one witness and got examined as defendant-witness No.1 and he was cross-examined also on 4^th March, 2020.

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that due to COVID-19, no proceedings were undertaken to record evidence till 11^th September, 2020 and later on the case was fixed on 14^th December, 2020 and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence on or before the next date i.e. 9^th February, 2021.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner-defendant wanted to produce one witness namely Mr.DP Gupta but on the relevant date, the said person was not well and he was suffering from Typhoid and as such request was made to grant one more opportunity to lead evidence.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that by impugned order dated 11^th February, 2021, the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner-defendant to lead evidence by observing that several opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-defendant to lead evidence of one witness-Mr.DP Gupta and this Court while considering the entire facts, may pass necessary orders giving direction to the Court below to permit the petitioner to lead evidence.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-3219/2021]

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that several opportunities have already been afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence and after the Court started normal functioning, after COVID-19 period was over, still the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence and as such no error has been committed by the Court below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to lead evidence.

¶27

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics in leading the evidence and as such no indulgence is required from this Court.

¶28

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the various order-sheets and finds that evidence of the plaintiff was continued from 2011 to 2019 and due to COVID-19, the Courts were not functioning properly and no evidence was recorded.

¶29

This Court finds that the petitioner has examined one witness and he only intends to examine one more witness on the next date.

¶30

This Court further finds that the interest of justice would be served if one more witness is allowed to be examined on behalf of the petitioner and some cost may be paid to the respondent for allowing such witness to be examined.

¶31

This Court considering the entire facts of the case, deems it proper to permit the petitioner to lead evidence of one more witness on the next date and the petitioner would also be required to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.

¶32

It is informed to this Court that the next date is fixed before the Commercial Court is 6^th December, 2021.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-3219/2021]

¶35

It is directed that the petitioner would lead his evidence on the same date and will also pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.

¶36

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶38

Monika/Ramesh Vaishnav

¶39

Devron Ascenda Private Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (Rrvpnl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devron Ascenda Private Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (Rrvpnl)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapoor Chand Saini Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Sumitra Devi Widow of Sanjeev Kumar Vs Jayveer Singh S/O Om Prakash

Jagdish Prasad S/O Shri Hukama Ram Vs Shri D.B. Gupta, Chief Secretary

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Savitri and Anr.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saroopbai and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Babu and Ors.