Point of Law: Conducting cross examination in a suit is a specialized job. It is only with experience that a counsel develops skills for cross examination. Different Advocates may conduct cross-examination in different manner and it may not be correct to say that which is the correct approach and which is not. Hence, at the mere behest of a dissatisfied litigant, it cannot be taken that the advocate has not conducted proper cross-examination of the witnesses. The Advocate in his wisdom conducts the cross-examination of the witnesses and a litigant cannot approach the court three years later and be heard to say that the cross-examination was not conducted properly.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the following three orders passed by the ADJ-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed in Civil Suit No.611999/2016:

(i) Order dated 16th April, 2021 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC), for placing on record complaint dated 11th November, 2014 against the petitioners’ previous counsel for not conducting proper cross-examination of the respondent’s/plaintiff’s witness.

(ii) Order dated 16th April, 2021 dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for recalling respondent’s witnesses namely respondent himself, Jai Bhagwan, Charan Dass and Bijender Kumar for further cross-examination.

(iii) Order dated 16th April, 2021, only partly allowing the application of the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC for taking on record documents filed by the petitioners/defendants.

2. After hearing the parties, judgment was reserved in the matter on 17th September, 2021. Both parties have filed written submissions which have been taken on record.

3. The suit from which the present petition arises was a suit for recovery of Rs.11,90,000/-. The said suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement, wherein it was stated that the alleged Will dated 20th June, 2006 of the petitioner no.1 and respondent’s mother was forged and fabricated and the alleged Will dated 26th March, 2007 of petitioner no.1 and respondent’s father was executed under force and coercion. The aforesaid Wills are also subject matter of an earlier partition suit filed on behalf of the petitioner no.1 which is also pending before the Trial Court. The issues were framed in the present suit on 15th July, 2010 and thereafter evidence was led on behalf of the respondent and the same was concluded in 2015. On 15th September, 2016 affidavit of evidence was filed on behalf of the petitioners. However, till date the cross-examination of the petitioner’s witnesses has not commenced.

4. As regards the impugned order dated 16th April, 2021, dismissing the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151, CPC, for placing on record complaint against their previous counsel, no submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners impugning the said order. The said order correctly records that the court cannot take action against a counsel for not properly conducting the case. Therefore, the complaint sought to be placed on record against the counsel was rightly dismissed.

5. As regards the impugned order in respect of application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A(3), CPC, the petitioners were allowed to place on record order dated 16th May, 2014 passed in the partition suit and copy of the list of documents filed by the father of petitioner no. 1 and the respondent, C.L. Raizada in the said suit. The grievance of the petitioners against the said impugned order is that they were not allowed to place on record relevant documents bearing signatures of the mother of petitioner no. 1 and the respondent, in support of their contention that the mother’s Will dated 20th June, 2006 is forged and fabricated.

6. The petitioner has placed on record a subsequent order dated 27th August, 2021 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14, CPC, for filing list of additional witnesses and application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 3, CPC for summoning additional witnesses, have been partly allowed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court while partly allowing both the applications observed that documents bearing the signature of the mother of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent are relevant for the present suit. In the said order, it was also noted by the Trial Court that the authenticity of both the wills are facts in issue in the present suit. In view of the aforesaid order dated 27th August, 2021, the gr