CM(M) No.785/2017 Page 1 of 6

$~63.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) No.785/2017, CM No.26366/2017 (for stay) and CM

No.26368/2017 (under Section 151 of the CPC for calling of record).

HIMALAYAN HELI SERVICES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. K. Datta, Mr. Vivek Malik and

Mr. Mukul Thakur, Advs.

versus

HIMACHAL HELICOPTER SKIING PVT LTD ..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

%

26.07.2017

CM No.26367/2017 (for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) No.785/2017, CM No.26366/2017 (for stay) and CM

No.26368/2017 (under Section 151 of the CPC for calling of record).

3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the order (dated 17^th May, 2017 of the Court of Additional District Judge –

05 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi) allowing the application of the

respondent / plaintiff for recalling of the order closing the evidence of the

respondent / plaintiff.

4. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant has been heard.

5. The suit from which this petition arises was instituted in this Court;

issues were framed in the suit on 9^th September, 2014 and the respondent /

plaintiff directed to file affidavits by way of examination-in-chief of its

witnesses within six weeks and the matter put up before the Joint Registrar

on 17^thNovember, 2014 “for marking exhibits on documents and fixing

dates of trial”. The respondent / plaintiff did not file any affidavits and on

2017:DHC:3949

CM(M) No.785/2017 Page 2 of 6

17^th November, 2014 sought time to file affidavits by way of examination-

in-chief.

6. Last and final opportunity was granted to the respondent / plaintiff to

file list of witnesses along with affidavit by way of evidence within two

weeks and the matter posted to 4^th March, 2015.

7. The respondent / plaintiff still did not file affidavits and no witnesses

of the respondent / plaintiff was present before the Joint Registrar on 4^th

March, 2015. On request of the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff which

was not opposed, the suit was adjourned to 10^th August, 2015 for the

respondent / plaintiff‟s evidence.

8. On 10^th August, 2015, though one witness of the respondent / plaintiff

was present but the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff sought further time

to file his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief; the said request was

declined; the evidence of the respondent / plaintiff closed and the suit posted

to 9^th December, 2015 for evidence of the petitioner / defendant.

9. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant on enquiry states that the

petitioner / defendant has already filed affidavit by way of examination-in-

chief of one witness.

10. On the next date of hearing i.e. 9^th December, 2015, the suit, owing to

the enhancement in the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, was

transferred to the District Judge and the parties directed to appear before the

District Judge on 3^rd March, 2016.

11. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant on enquiry states that

tendering of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of the witness of

the petitioner / defendant has not taken place as yet.

12. It is at that stage that the respondent / plaintiff filed the application

2017:DHC:3949

CM(M) No.785/2017 Page 3 of 6

against order whereon this petition has been preferred.

13. The counsel for the petitioner / defendant firstly contended that the

order of the Joint Registrar, when the suit was pending before this Cour