1 59. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1059/2010 RAVI KANOJIA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Adv. versus ARCHANA KANOJIA ..... Respondent Through: NEMO. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI ORDER 18.08.2010 + CM N0.14796/2010 (EXEMPTION) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exception. 2. Application stands disposed of. + CM(M)N0.1059/2010. 3. Present petition is directed against the order passed by leaned Additional District Judge (North Delhi), Tis Hazari, in HMA No.667/2006 on 13.4.2010, by virtue of which, the right of the respondent herein to lead evidence has been closed by the learned Additional District Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had already moved an application for transfer of his case on account Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified of the fact that petitioner is under the impression that the learned court is prejudiced towards the petitioner (respondent before the trial court). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner could not lead evidence in the matter due to cogent reasons. 5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and also perused the order sheets, copies of which have been filed on record. T11e Order sheets reveal that four opportunities were granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. On 11.9.2009, the matter was listed for respondent's evidence, however, the affidavit by way of evidence was not filed nor a copy was supplied to the opposite side. On 11.9.2009, counsel for the respondent sought an adjournment on the ground that the ma1 n counsel had to go to Nainital for some official work. The matter was adjourned to 21.10.2009 on which date the position was no different; neither the witness was present nor affidavit by way of evidence was filed. On 21.10.2009, last opportunity was grantej to the respondent to lead evidence and matter was adjourned t<J 8.12.2009. On 8.12.2009 matter was again adjourned to CM(M) 1059!2010 2!5 18.1.2010 as counsel for the respondent had gone to Dehradoon to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law. On 18.1.2010, "Tia! court was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 22.1.2010. On 22.1.2010 the matter was adjourned to 3.3.2010 for respondent's evidence. On 3.3.2010, neither any affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the respondent nor any witness was present, which led to the passing of the order dated 13.4.2010, subject matter of the present petition. In the impugned order, learned trial court has taken into account the conduct of the petitioner herein, which is reproduced below: CM(M) 1059/2010 "(I) A cheque of Rs.3000/- given by respondent to petitioner for maintenance was dishonoured. (II) PW1/ Petitioner was cross examined at lengtr, on 16.7.2009 before lunch sessions and her further cross examination was deferred on the request of counsel for respondent till 3.30 p.m. But he did not appear on the fixed time and a cost of Rs.1000/- was imposed upon respondent. The matter was adjourned with the clear direction to the respom:ient to conclude cross examination of the witnesses on the coming date and that was to be the last opportunity. (Ill) On the adjourned dated i.e. 7 .8.2009, instead of cross examining PW1, respondent moved two applications - one under section 7 and 25 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 and another under section 151 of CPC for waiving of the cost imposed 3/5 C/VI(/VI) 1059/2010 upon on 16.7.2009 in order not to cross examine PWl. Respondent's counsel stated that these two applications be decided first and then he will cross examine the witness. The counsel was asked again and again to cross examine the witness but at last. he stated that he does not want to cross examine PWl. In this way right of the respondent to cross examine PW1 was closed and direction was given to respondent to lead evidence by way of affidavit and to supply copies of the opposite party preferably 7 days before and positively one day before the elate fixed. The case was adjourned to 11.9.2009 for RE. (IV) On 11.9.2009, affidavit in evidence was neither- on the file nor copy was supplied to the opposite party. An application was moved on behalf o'' respondent for adjournment on the ground that his counsel has gone to Nanital for urgent official purpose. The case was adjourned to 21.10.2009 for RE. (V) On 21.10.2009, no witness was present. Affidavit in evidence of any witness was neither or, the file nor copy was supplied to the other party anc one last and final opportunity was grantee respondent to conclude RE on 8.12.2009. (VI) On 8.12.2009, proxy counsel for respondent moved an application under section 151 of CPC for adjournment stating that the main counsel had gone to Dehradun to attend the marriage of brother-in-law. Again, last and final opportunity was granted to lead RE subject to payment of cost of Rs.SOOO/- for 18.1.2010. (VII) On 18.1.2010, Presiding Officer of this Court was on leave. But respondent did not care to file affidavit in evidence what to talk of supplying its copy to the other party. 4/5 (VIII) On 22.1.2010, the case was fixed for proper order. Respondent did not file affidavit in evidence of any witness. He did not pay the cost of Rs.SOOO/-. The case was adjourned to 3.3.2010 and that was to be last and final opportunity for RE. (IX) On 3.3.2010, no evidence was led taking the excuse that the respondent has moved a transfer application which was pending in the court of Ld. District judge, North, Delhi. In the interest of justice, again one last and final opportunity was granted to lead RE on 13.4.2010. (X) On 13.4.2010 i.e. today, the counsel for respondent first sought adjournment and when it w-as not granted he stated that the ld. District Judge, North, Delhi had asked him to tell this court not to proceed with the present case until application was decided. He stated that he would file copy of that order at 2.00 p.m. But at later stage, he admitted that there was no such written order. When all attempts of the respondent for adjournment failed, his counsel filed affidavit in evidence of the respondent but its copies were not supplied even today to the opposite party. (XI) Cost of Rs.SOOO/-has still not been paid." 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the order, I find no infirmity in the order dated 13.4.2010. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. CM N0.14795/2010. 7. Application stands dismissed in view of the orders passed in the petition. August 18, 2010'msr' CM(M) 1059!2010 G.S. SISTANI, J. 5/5