$~72&73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision^: 27^th September, 2024 + CM(M) 2864/2024 & CM APPL. 56459/2024 (early hearing)

VARUN GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ganesh Khanna and Mr.

Aditya P Khanna, Advocates.

versus SUMAN GROVER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi with Mr. Jatin Arora, Mr. Rahul Aggarwal and Mr.

Anurag Kaushik, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi with Mr. Ananya Saraogi, Advocates for R-2.

73 + CM(M) 3314/2024& CM APPL. 51043-51044/2024 VARUN GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ganesh Khanna and Mr.

Aditya P Khanna, Advocates.

versus SUMAN GROVER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Avinash Trivedi with Mr. Jatin Arora, Mr. Rahul Aggarwal and Mr.

Anurag Kaushik, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi with Mr. Ananya Saraogi, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner herein is defending a suit for recovery.

2. Two different orders, passed by learned Trial Court during the pendency of said suit, have been challenged by filing the aforesaid petitions.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 2864/2024& CM(M) 3314/2024 1

3. In context of CM(M) 2864/2024, the petitioner had sought opinion of handwriting expert in order to demonstrate that no ‘letter of acceptance’

dated 15.07.2016 was ever signed by him.

4. Such request was declined by the learned Trial Court vide order dated

08.05.2024.

5. However, after hearing arguments for some time, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, states that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner is no longer interested in pressing his above said petition.

6. The above said petition i.e. CM(M) 2864/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed.

7. As regards to the other petition, the grievance of the petitioner is very limited.

8. According to petitioner, during the course of examination-in-chief, certain documents were placed by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and were exhibited also. However, for proving them in a desired manner, there was a requirement of placing on record a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharitya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) by the plaintiff. Since there was no such certificate, the cross examination qua those documents was not elaborate and exhaustive.

9. However, by virtue of subsequent order dated 08.05.2024, the learned Trial Court permitted the plaintiff to place on record such certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharitya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 2864/2024& CM(M) 3314/2024 2 Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). However, the aspect of admissibility of said certificate was kept open as the learned Trial Court had observed that it would be seen during the course of final arguments.

10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff states that in order to ensure that even said certificate is proved properly and in accordance with law, he has instructions that the plaintiff would like to enter into witness box again and states that to the above said extent, he would have no objection, if the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking cross-examination of PW-2 (Mr. Praveen Grover) is allowed. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner states that in view of the above, this Court may pass appropriate directions.

12. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in order to cut short any possible controversy which may arise in future, the petition is disposed of with the direction that PW-2 (Mr. Praveen Grover) would be permitted to enter into witness box for formally tendering the above said certificate and thereafter, the defendant would be permitted to cross-examine the said witness, limited to the aspect of said certificate and any document related to the above said certificate.

13. Since the matter is, reportedly, listed