CM(M) 1000/2021

Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 11^th November, 2021

Decided on : 23^rd November, 2021

+

CM(M) 1000/2021 and CM No. 39841/2021 (for stay)

LAXMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY & ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate

with

Mr.

Rajinder

Singh,

Mr.

Moinuddin Khan, Ms. Tanima Gaur,

Mr. Piyush Gupta and Mr. Lakshya

Dheer, Advocates.

Versus

NAVSHAKTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Prashant Mehta with Ms. Ishita

Choudhry, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 25^th October, 2021 passed by

the Senior Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ

No.607119/2016, whereby the Trial Court while appointing a Local

Commissioner to record the evidence of PW-9, has held that objections

raised by the petitioners/defendants with regard to mode of proof and

admissibility of document marked as Ex.PW-9/1(Colly) in the affidavit by

way of evidence, will be considered at the time of final arguments.

2021:DHC:3771

CM(M) 1000/2021

Page 2 of 18

2.

Before I proceed to deal with the contentions raised by the counsels

on merits, I would like to highlight the part of the impugned order wherein it

is recorded that the present suit was filed in the year 1984 and is the

oldest matter in the Court. It is a sad state of affairs that a suit filed in

1984 still remains pending.

3.

Earlier, I had occasion to deal with an application (CM

No.9194/2021) in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

arising out of the same suit, which was disposed of vide order dated 1^st

October, 2021. The said petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, being CM(M) 150/2020, was preferred by the respondents before this

Court challenging the order dated 22^nd January, 2020 passed in the suit,

dismissing the application filed on behalf of the respondents herein under

Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to

place on record additional documents. This Court vide judgment dated 6^th

February, 2020 while disposing of CM(M) 150/2020 filed on behalf of the

respondents herein, passed the following directions:

school and as to who would be controlling the said school. The

nature of the suit is such that the Court cannot ignore relevant

and important evidence that the Plaintiff society wishes to

adduce at this stage. The delay that has been caused, has

resulted in the Defendants continuing to be in the management

of the school. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the Defendants if

the Plaintiff is allowed to lead the evidence of two witnesses -

PW8 and PW9. Considering the nature of the suit and the nature

2021:DHC:3771

CM(M) 1000/2021

Page 3 of 18

not run into more than 25 pages. The only documents permitted

to be exhibited by PW9 with his evidence would be the R TI

records obtained from the DDA, which are sought to be placed

on record, subject to the objections as to mode of proof and

admissibility.

(iii) The examination in chief of PW9 shall commence on 24^th

4.

After the aforesaid judgment was passed by this Court, it was

expected that the trial in the suit would proceed smoothly and as per the

schedule laid down by this Court. However, that was not to be. Since there

was a delay of two days in filing of the affidavit of evidence of PW-9 from

the time fixed by this Court, the Trial Court dismissed the application for

condonation of delay in filing the said affidavit and did not take the same on

record. Accordingly, an application was filed before this Court by the

respondents, being CM No.9194/2020 in the disposed of petition, CM(M)

150/2020, for condonation of delay and taking on record the affidavit of

evidence