Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Pawanjit Singh Bawa - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
CM(M) 1477 of 2023 & CM APPL. 47099 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Article 227 - Petition to Summon Official Witnesses - The court declined permission to summon official witnesses as the documents sought to be proved were already admitted in evidence without objections from the contesting party.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the trial court's order declining permission to summon two official witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents sought to be proved were already admitted in evidence without objections from the contesting party, and therefore, declined permission to summon the official witnesses.
Issues: The issue was whether the summoning of official witnesses was necessary when the documents sought to be proved were already admitted in evidence without objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the documents were already admitted in evidence without objections, and therefore, it was not necessary to summon the official witnesses.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the pending application was also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by SCJ-cum-RC, Central District, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS SCJ 1444/2016, titled as Pawanjit Singh Bawa v. Union of India, declining permission to the Petitioner herein to summon two (2) official witnesses i.e., concerned officer from the Office of (i) Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi; and (ii) Revenue Department, Mehrauli.
2. This matter was heard on 17.10.2023 and in pursuance thereto the Petitioner has filed on 03.11.2023 the details of the exhibits of the documents, which were sought to be proved by summoning these two (2) official witnesses.
3. The documents Exhibit `PW 1/3', Exhibit `PW 1/7', Exhibit `PW 1/8' are sought to be proved by summoning witness from office of Sub Registrar- III, New Delhi
4. The documents Exhibit `PW 1/1', Exhibit `PW 1/2', Exhibit `PW 1/4', Exhibit `PW 1/5', Exhibit `PW 1/6', Exhibit `PW 1/16', Exhibit `PW 1/17' and Exhibit `PW 1/19' are sought to be proved through Revenue Department, Mehrauli.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that for each of the aforesaid exhibited documents either the originals are on record or the certified copies are on record.
5.1. He states that the said documents have been tendered by PW-1 in his examination in chief. He further states that the documents have been marked as exhibits without any objections being raised by the contesting defendant, Delhi Development Authority (`DDA') with respect to the mode of proof.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent, DDA also states on instructions that no objections as to the mode of proof has been raised.
7. In view of the admitted possession, this Court is of the opinion that the summoning of witness from the office of Sub Registrar-III, Delhi and Revenue Department, Mehrauli is not necessary as the documents have already been admitted in evidence and therefore, no interference is merited in the order of the Trial Court dated 10.08.2023.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner does not press for further cross examination of witnesses of Respondent, DDA. The said statement is taken on record.
9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.
10. Pending application stands disposed of.
The court's decision was based on the principle that when documents are already admitted in evidence without objections, the summoning of official witnesses may not be necessary.
The relevance and necessity of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be considered by the court when deciding on applications to summon witnesses.
Procedural rules serve to advance justice, and denial of evidence crucial for adjudication violates the fair opportunity afforded to parties in a civil suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence produced by the parties cannot be considered in the absence of pleading, and parties should not be permitted to travel beyond their p....
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
