/ XT' c * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 49 + CM (M) 578/2010 MOHD RASHID & ANR Petitioners Through:Mr. MrinalMadhavwithMr. Kumar Saurabh, Advocate versus RATAN CHAKARVORTY & ANR Respondents And 56 + CM (M) 579/2010 MOHD RASfflD & ANR Petitioners Through; Mr. Mrinal Madhav with Mr. Kumar Saurabh, Advocate versus SANKHALATA CHAKARVARTY & ANR Respondents CORAM; JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 28.04.2010 CM APPL Nos. 7838/2010 in CM TM) No. 578/2010 CM APPL Nos. 7852/2010 in CM (M) No. 579/2010 Exemptionsallowedsubjectto alljust exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CM (M) No. 578/2010 & CM APPL Nos. 7837-7839/2010 CM (M) No. 579/2010 & CM APPL Nos. 7851-7853/2010 1. CM (M) No. 578 of 2010 is filed by two of the Defendants in Suit No. 1326 of 2006 challengingorders dated 22"^^ April 2009, 20^^ August 2009, and 11^'' November2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi CM (M) Nos, 578/10&579/10 Page1 of2 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 t," c ('scj'). o 2. CM (M) No. 579 of 2010 is filed by two of the Defendants in Suit No. 1327 of 2006 challenging the separate orders passed on the same dates by the learned SCJ. 3. As regards Suit No. 1326 of2006 by an order dated IS^*" May 2009 the learnedSCJ clarifiedthat an errorhad crept into the order sheet dated 22"^^ April 2009 since in that case no Plaintiffwitness (TW) had been cross- examinedby the Defendantsas the evidencewas beingrecordedin the other suit i.e. No. 1327 of2006. It appearsthat on 20^*" August2009 in both suits learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was not present and their opportunityto cross-examinePW-2 and PW-3 was closed. The case was thereafter fixed for Defendant's evidence by the third impugned order dated 11'*^November 2009. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and having perused tha documents on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders that calls for interference. 5. The petitions and the pending applications are dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J APRIL 28, 2010 rk CM(M) Nos. 578/10 & 579/10 Page 2 of 2