Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 183 (MP)

Girraj Bansal v. Omprakash Agrawal

2012-02-09

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by First Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2008, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for further cross examination of the plaintiff was dismissed, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for eviction which was contested by the petitioner. After completing the statement of the respondents, certain documents were filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, an application was filed for further cross-examination. Hence, this petition. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner as the documents were already on record in spite of that the Court below has observed that the application was filed with delay. It is submitted that petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that delaying tactics are being, used by the petitioner. It is submitted that the documents were filed. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the matter of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, AIR 2009 SC 1604 , wherein the witnesses were examined by way of affidavit evidence. The apex Court held that recalling, of such witness for giving further evidence regarding facts not mentioned in the affidavit is not permissible. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 4. From the record it is evidence that the documents on which permission is sought for cross-examination is already on record which was filed though with a delay but same was allowed. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with short direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to further cross-examination only relating to those documents but on that account, the petitioner shall not be allowed to cause any delay. The respondent No.1 shall remain present in the Court on the date fixed and the petitioner shall cross-examine on that day. 5. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. D.D. Bansal for petitioner; Aniket Naik for respondents.