CM(M) 626/2021

Page 1 of 7

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 20^th September, 2021.

+

CM(M) 626/2021

DR. SITANSHI SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Rajiv Bakshi and Mr.

Akshay Joshi, Advocates

versus

VANDANA SHARMA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CM No.32398/2021 (for exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 626/2021 and CM No.32397/2021 (for interim directions)

3.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order dated 21^st August, 2021 passed by the Civil Judge-08

(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.1369/2020, whereby the

application filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 (hereinafter for

convenience referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions to Bharti Airtel Limited to

2021:DHC:2940

CM(M) 626/2021

Page 2 of 7

preserve and produce the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the mobile number

of the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 (hereinafter for convenience referred

to as the ‘respondent No.3’), being the husband of the petitioner, for the

period from 08^th October, 2020 to 01^st July, 2021 and till the final disposal

of the suit, has been dismissed. During the arguments pertaining to the said

application and the present petition, the counsel for the petitioner limited his

prayer to the preservation of the aforesaid CDR.

4.

The suit from which the present petition arises was filed by the

respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs (hereinafter for convenience referred to as

the ‘respondents No.1 and 2’), being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of

the petitioner, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and her

family members from forcibly entering the suit property bearing No.49/7,

Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and from causing any interference in the

peaceful use and occupation of the said property. Vide order dated 15^th

October, 2020, an interim injunction was passed in favour of the

respondents No.1 and 2 and against the petitioner restraining the petitioner

from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents No.1 and 2 and

entering into the suit property. The aforesaid suit was contested on behalf of

the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner also filed an

application under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) in the said suit praying residence and

protection orders under the said Act.

5.

The application, from the dismissal of which the present petition

arises, was filed on behalf of the petitioner for preservation the CDR of the

respondent No.3. It was contended that the CDR would demonstrate that the

respondent No.3 has been residing at the suit property and had never shifted

2021:DHC:2940

CM(M) 626/2021

Page 3 of 7

to a separate residence as alleged in the plaint. Therefore, the foundation for

the suit for permanent injunction was false and hence, it was important to

preserve the CDR of the mobile number of the respondent No.3 to prove the

that the suit had been filed by the respondents in collusion.

6.

The aforesaid application was contested on behalf of the respondents

by filing replies. In the replies it is contended that, (i) the Court could not

collect evidence for the parties; (ii) since the issues were yet to be framed,

the scope of evidence would be decided only thereafter; (iii) the application

was a roving and fishing inquiry to prepare for the petitioner’s defence in

the divorce proceedings pending between the petitioner and the respondent

No.3; (iv) the preservation of CDR of the respondent No.3 would amount to

invasio