Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Amar Chand Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Anshul Jain – Respondent
CM(M) 494 of 2023 & CM APPL. 14843 of 2023
Decided On : 01-05-2023
EVIDENCE - Right to Lead Evidence - The court directed the Trial Court to take the evidence filed by way of an affidavit on record, provide opportunities to record evidence of witnesses, and imposed compensatory costs for delay in examining witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order closing the right to lead evidence of a witness and the right to record evidence of other witnesses. The court directed the Trial Court to take evidence on record, provide opportunities to record evidence, and imposed compensatory costs for delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Trial Court to take specific actions regarding the recording of evidence and imposed compensatory costs on the petitioner for delay.
Issues: Challenging order closing the right to lead evidence, recording evidence of witnesses, compensatory costs for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court should provide opportunities to record evidence and impose compensatory costs for delay in examining witnesses.
Final Decision: The petition along with pending application is disposed of, and the petitioner is directed to pay compensatory costs to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.03.2023 in ARC No. 1010/17 titled as "Anshul Jain vs. Amar Chand Sharma" whereby the learned ARC had closed the right of the leading evidence of one RW, namely, Mr. Aditya Sharma and simultaneously closed the right of the petitioner from recording the evidence of its other witnesses.
2. With the consent of the parties, the following directions are passed:
(i) the learned Trial Court is directed to take the evidence filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Aditya Sharma on record and provide one opportunity to record the evidence of said Mr. Aditya Sharma.
(ii) the learned Trial Court is also directed to provide one further opportunity to the petitioner to summon the official witnesses from the Property Tax Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(iii) after taking the evidence of Mr. Aditya Sharma on record, the learned Trial Court shall commence the recording of the evidence of the said witness on 20.05.2023, on which date the learned Trial Court shall complete the recording of evidence of the said Mr. Aditya Sharma.
(iv) the learned Trial Court shall provide another date for examination of the summoned witness, whose evidence will be recorded on the same date.
3. It is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall not provide any further opportunity to examine the witnesses as aforesaid.
4. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law.
5. Since there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner from examining his witnesses, compensatory costs ought to be made over to the respondent. Accordingly, petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the respondent on or before 20.05.2023.
6. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.
The Trial Court should provide opportunities to record evidence and impose compensatory costs for delay in examining witnesses.
Trial courts must prioritize the merits of cases over procedural technicalities, allowing opportunities to present evidence conditioned on fair costs.
Fairness in trial proceedings and providing opportunities for evidence
The right to fair trial and the importance of parties defending their cases by leading cogent evidence.
The court upheld the necessity for timely evidence submission while allowing one last opportunity for the petitioner, emphasizing procedural diligence.
The disputes between the parties should be disposed of on merits rather than on petty technical issues.
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court should consider the reasons for adjournments and afford opportunities to parties to lead evidence, especially when the delay is not attributab....
The court has the discretion to permit the leading of evidence with strict conditions to avoid further delays and can impose costs for previous negligence in defending suit proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
