CM(M)--1148/2019. Case: RAKESH KUMAR SOLANKI Vs. RAJ KUMAR & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CM(M)--1148/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 09, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 9th December, 2019
+ CM(M) 1148/2019 & CM APPL. 34830/2019
RAKESH KUMAR SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. versus
RAJ KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
-
(M:9818582376)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Sachin Nawani Advocates for (M:9910770311)
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, SC for DDA Mr. Nazia Parveen,
(M:9278693021)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J(Oral)
-
Ld. Counsels for the parties have been heard. It is submitted Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are ex-parte before the Trial Court.
-
The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned dated 1st April, 2019 by which the witnesses of the Petitioner/Defendant No.6 were not permitted to be examined and the evidence of Petitioner closed by the Trial Court. The submission of ld. counsel for the Petitioner is that on the earlier occasion, vide order dated 12th March, 2019 the same very witnesses were permitted to be summoned by the Petitioner and despite witness coming in the Court, since the record was not brought witness, who sought an adjournment to produce the record, the evidence
been closed on the ground that the list of witnesses was not filed Petitioner.
-
There is no doubt that parties have to file list of witnesses prior to the commencement of the Plaintiff’s evidence as held in Zile Singh v.
the witness was present before the Court, the Trial Court ought not to turned back the said witness.
-
Moreover, the Petitioner wishes to produce the official from the Registrar’s office to show that the Respondent owns two other flats wrong statement has been made by the Respondent to the DDA. Wi going into the details as to why the Petitioner wishes...
To continue reading
Request your trial