$~3.
*
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
CM(M) No.517/2017, CM
No.17488/2017 (for stay) & CM No.17489/2017 (under Section 151 CPC).
KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL .....
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
with
Mr. S.K.
Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
Suman,
Rahul Shamra and Mr. Kapil
Giri,
Advs.
versus
P K OVERSEAS PVT LTD .....
Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhil
Sibal, Sr. Adv.with
Mr.
Akhil Sachar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
% 20.07.2017
1.
This petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated (6th March, 2017 of the Court of the
Additional District Judge-10 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in TM No.48/12
(974/16) taking on record and admitting into evidence certain documents deposed
by the witness DW1 of the respondent / defendant in the course of his
cross-examination by the petitioner / plaintiff.
2.
The senior counsel for the respondent / defendant
appeared on caveat.
3.
The counsels have been heard.
4.
What has emerged is that (i) the
suit from which this petition arises has been filed by the petitioner /
plaintiff against the respondent / defendant for reliefs of injunction and
damages etc. on the ground of the respondent / defendant passing off its goods
namely rice as that of the petitioner /
plaintiff
by adopting the device of „TAJ MAHAL‟; (ii) the interim order
CM(M) No.517/2017 page 1 of
3
sought by the petitioner / plaintiff was denied to the petitioner /
plaintiff and against which the petitioner / plaintiff came up before this
Court in appeal;
(iii)
the said appeal was disposed of
by directing the trial to be completed within six months; (iv) the trial has
now been completed and the suit posted
for final arguments on 22nd July, 2017; and, (v) during the
cross-examination by the petitioner / plaintiff of DW1 on 6th March, 2017, DW1 in response to
one of the questions made a voluntary statement also referring to the documents
in the file which had been summoned by the respondent / defendant on that date
and the learned Additional District Judge has overruled the objection of the
petitioner / plaintiff to the taking on record and admissibility of the said
documents and allowed the said documents to be tendered as Ex.DW1/P8
collectively.
9.
It is the contention of the
senior counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that the learned Additional
District Judge has erred in taking the said documents on record and admitting
the same into evidence and in overruling the objection of the petitioner /
plaintiff as to admissibility.
10.
I may notice that the learned Additional District
Judge has kept the
question of the “extent of proof” open for adjudication at the stage of final
arguments.
11.
I have asked as to the relevance
of the aforesaid evidence and the issues framed in the suit.
12.
Neither have the issues framed
been placed on record nor is either of the counsel today able to supply copy
thereof.
13.
Without knowing what are the
issues in the suit, the relevance of the evidence and the need to interfere
with the order cannot be gauged.
CM(M) No.517/2017 page 2 of
3
14.
The senior counsel for the
respondent / defendant states that the documents on which Ex.DW1/P8 has been
put were infact documents in another suit between the same parties with respect
to the same packaging and record of which suit had been summoned on that date.
It is also contended that during the course of examination of the DW1 by the
petitioner / plaintiff, some other documents from the summoned suit record were
also proved as Ex.DW1/P6 and qua which no challenge is made by the petitioner /
plaintiff.
15.
The senior counsel for the
petitioner / plaintiff states that the documents Ex.DW1/P6 were not objected to
because copies thereof were ready on the file of the subject suit.
16.
The
learned Additional District
Judge having kept
the matter of
“extent of proof” open and subject to adjudication,
presumably at the stage of final arguments, it is deemed appropriate to dispose
of this petition also with liberty to the counsels to at the stage of final
arguments address further arguments if any with respect to the documents
Ex.DW1/P8 being taken on record and being admitted into evidence and the
learned Additional District Judge is requested to in the final judgment in the
suit also deal with the said contentions uninfluenced by the proceedings dated
6th March, 2017.
17.
No costs.
18.
It is made clear that I have not
heard the counsels on the challenge in this petition and thus this order should
not be construed as this Court having formed any opinion thereon.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 20, 2017
„pp‟..CM(M) No.517/2017 page 3 of
3
