Niraj Sharma v. Harvinder Singh

ORDER %

08.11.2017 CAV No.956/2017 in CM(M1 1261/2017

¶1The counsel for the caveator/respondent appears.

¶2The caveat stands discharged. CMs No.40115-40116/2017 in CM(M) 1261/2017 (both for exemption!

¶3Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶4The applications are disposed of. CM(M) Nos. 1132/2017 & 1261/2017 9^ rivinvn No.t2fiirann & CM 'J" 'inii't/tni? (for stav^ riyifivn No,1»^/M17 & rM No.36ii^^rani7 ffor stay)

¶5These petitions, both under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arise from the same Suit being Suit No.8868/2016 titled Harvinder Singh vs. Madhuri Sharma of the Court of Additional District Judge, South East Dist, Saket Courts, Delhi.

¶6CM(M) No. 1132/2017 impugning the order dated IS'^' September, 2017 dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant No.2 for allowing handwriting expert of the petitioner/plaintiff to take photographs of the documents on record and to examine the said handwriting expert, came up before this Court first on 13"^ October, 2017 when the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 was found to be unprepared finding him to be young an opportunity was given to him and the matter posted to today.

¶7Today, CM(M) No. 1261/2017 impugning the order dated 28' October, 2017 refusing opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.2 to examine the handwriting expert whose affidavit by way of exammation-in-chief was presented was dismissed and the evidence of the petitioner/ defendant No.2 closed and the Suit posted for final arguments to 1 November, 2017.

¶8On enquiry, both counsels state that part final arguments were heard on V November, 2017 and the Suit is listed for remaining final arguments for today.

¶9In this view of the matter, it is not deemed appropriate to interfere with the hearing of final arguments in the Suit by entertaining these petitions ,th CM(M) Nos. 1132/2017 1261/2017 ^ r at this stage. It has been suggested that it will be open to the petitioner/ defendant No.2 to, in the appeal if any preferred from the final judgment in the Suit, in accordance with law, also challenge the orders impugned in these petitions including on the same grounds as urged in these petitions.

¶10The counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 is agreeable thereto.

¶11In this light of the matter, I refrain jfrom observing anything further.

¶12The petitions are disposed of with the libejtyaforesaid. NOVEMBER 08,2017 pk.. JIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J CM(M) Nos. 1132/2017 & I26I/20I7

/ $-6 & * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1132/2017 NIRAJ SHARMA Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Mr.Karanjot Singh, Md. Qamar Ali, Mr. Danish Ali, Advocates versus HARVINDER SINGH Respondent Through: Mr. Ujjawal Jha, Mr. T.D. Sharma, Advocates + CM(M) 1261/2017 NIRAJ SHARMA Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Arjun Gadhoke, Mr.Karanjot Singh, Md. Qamar Ali, Mr. Danish Ali, Advocates versus HARVINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ujjawal Jha, Mr. T.D. Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW