Dr Rakesh Varma v. Vidya Sagar Bhagat (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr

order was passed: Pass over for 12:30 PM sought on behalf of defendant no. 2 on the ground that main counsel will be available at 12:30 PM. Plaintiff submits that he is a Doctor by profession and have some official appointment, therefore, he has to rush. The plaintiff is at liberty to leave. At request on behalf of defendant no. 2, put up at 12:30 PM. At 12:30 PM "Proxy counsel for defendant no. 2 again submits that main counsel is still busy in other court. She has filed the affidavit in evidence of Hand Writing Expert namely Deepak Jain alongwith the original report of Hand Writing Expert. Copy supplied to LRs of deceased defendant no. 1 today in court. Spare copy of the same for plaintiff is kept on record. Plaintiff may take the same from the Ahlmad against the proper

receipt. At request on behalf of defendant no. 2, put up for DE on 10.05.2019 at 11:30 AM."

¶13Perusal of the record shows that from the passing of the order dated 8th January, 2019 allowing the evidence of handwriting expert, till 12th April, 2019 when the petition was filed before the High Court, the entire delay is on part of the Defendant No.2 who was initially given 30 days to complete the process of the report of the handwriting expert but approximately three months elapsed in that process.

¶14The Plaintiff lodged this petition on 12th April, 2019 as is clear from the record. On the said date, in the morning, a passover was sought by the Review Applicant itself and the matter was passed over to 12:30 p.m. It is at 12:30 p.m. that the report of the handwriting expert was tendered before the Trial Court as is evident from the order dated 12th April 2019 passed by the Trial Court. By that time, the petition had actually stood lodged before the High Court which is evident from the record. Thus, the stand of the Review Applicant that the petition was filed after the report was tendered before the Trial Court is contrary to the record.

¶15Coming to the second submission of the Defendant No.2 that the petition was filed in a belated manner – initially vide order dated 8th January, 2019, gave 30 days' time to Defendant No.2 to conclude the entire process of examining the handwriting expert, i.e., taking photograph of the admitted and disputed signature and examining the witness. However, as is clear from the chronology of events set out above, the said process was further delayed by the Defendant No.2 by almost a period of three months. During this process, the Petitioner appears to have applied for a certified copy of the

order dated 8th January, 2019 which was released to the Petitioner on 8th February, 2019. Thereafter, steps are stated to have been taken by the Petitioner for filing of the petition.

¶16The petition challenges the order dated 8th January, 2019 on merits i.e., to the effect that after more than 30 years, when the evidence of all the parties has been closed and the matter is listed for final arguments, the evidence is sought to be reopened by the Defendant No.2 by filing of an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. This is a substantive argument on behalf of the Petitioner. Even if it is presumed that the petition was filed by the Plaintiff on 12th April 2019 after obtaining a certified copy, on 8th February, 2019, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be held to be belated filing considering the fact that Defendant No.2 was itself not moving with alacrity in respect of the handwriting expert's report. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the filing of this petition cannot be held to be belated by any standard inasmuch as the same was clearly filed within the period of three months after the passing of the impugned order.

¶17Moreover, in the present case, as noticed in the main order dated 11th September, 2019, the suit relates to a prime property in South Delhi being D-15, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi ad measuring 297 sq. yards. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated 27th December, 1987 in which reliance is placed on receipt dated 2nd March, 1988 which is being disputed by the Defendant No.2. This document was on record of the suit since inception. The Defendant No.2 - Review Applicant having been impleaded on 24th April, 1990, the filing of an application in 2019 i.e., after 29 years, cannot be said to be bona fide conduct. If the report of the handwriting expert is taken on record at this

stage, the evidence would have to be reopened as the Plaintiff will need an opportunity to rebut the same. Cross examination of the experts will ensue. The final adjudication will be further delayed. The Defendant No.2's intention obviously seems to be to delay the final adjudication of the suit.

¶18In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the review application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed along with all pending applications.

¶19Since the passing of the order dated 11th September, 2019, more than 2 years have passed. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to adjudicate the suit on or before 30th May, 2022.

¶20No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to the parties. Matter is fixed for 17th January, 2022. If physical court does not resume, the arguments shall be heard by the Trial Court through video conferencing.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE JANUARY 5, 2022 Rahul/SK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 5th January, 2022 + DR RAKESH VARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shankar Vaidyalingam & Mr. Baldev Krishan, Advocates (M- 9810134261) versus VIDYA SAGAR BHAGAT (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kuljeet Rawal, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) REVIEW PET. 492/2019 1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. 2. The present review petition filed by the Review Applicant/Respondent/Defendant No.2 (hereinafter "Defendant No.2") under section 114 of the CPC read with Order 47 CPC seeks review of the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed by this Court. By the said order, the impugned order dated 8th January, 2019 in C.S. No.612619/2016 titled Dr. Rakesh Verma Vs. Vidya Sagar Bhagat passed by the ld. ADJ-03/West District/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") granting Defendant No.2 the liberty to lead the evidence of the handwriting expert thirty years after the suit was filed was set aside. 3. The review petition is premised on the order dated 11th November, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 26334-35 of 2019 titled Suresh Manasharamani v Rakesh Varma & Anr. wherein, the Supreme Court observed as under: "The principal argument of the petition is that the respondents moved the High Court at a belated stage and in particular only after the report of handwriting expert was received placed on record before the Trial Court. This aspect, presumably, was not brought to the notice of the High Court. In that case, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the High Court by way of Review Petition, if so advised. These Special Leave Petition are disposed of with liberty to the petition to approach the High Court by way of Review Petition. If the Review Petition is decided against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said decision as well as the impugned judgment by way of Special Leave petition before this Court. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 4. Mr. Rawal, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.2 submits that owing to the liberty given by the Supreme Court, the present review petition has been preferred. He submits that the only point that he wishes to urge in the review is that the order dated 8th January, 2019 was challenged by the Petitioner/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") before this Court in a belated manner. To support the said plea, he relies upon the orders dated 8th January, 2019, 30th January, 2019, 2nd February, 2019, 11th March, 2019 and 12th April, 2019 passed by the Trial Court wherein, according to him, the proceedings in the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, were passed by the trial court. He submits that the presence of the Plaintiff in person/through his Counsel is duly noted in the said orders. On the strength of these orders, it is his submission that the Plaintiff was fully aware of the application filed by the Defendant No.2 seeking permission to lead the evidence of an handwriting expert. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 8th January, 2019. The handwriting expert had also lifted the specimen signatures from the documents on 8th February, 2019 and the report of the handwriting expert was also filed on 12th April, 2019 with the Trial Court. However, in this process from 8th January, 2019 to 12th April 2019, no objection was ever raised by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff deliberately chose to challenge the original order of 8th January, 2019 only after the handwriting expert's report was taken on record by the Trial Court. 5. According to him, it is this belated challenge to the order dated 8th January, 2019 on Plaintiff's part which deserves to be considered by this Court which has not been considered by the Court while passing the order dated 11th September, 2019. He further submits that now that the handwriting expert's report is on record, since the Pl