Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 22 CS SCJ 2387/23
M/S EMARSONS COURIERS Vs. M/S VORTEX RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT.
LTD. AND ANR.
16.03.2026
Present: Ms. Kulwant Kaur, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Plaintiff with plaintiff.
Mr. Kalimuddin, Ld. Counsel for Defendants no.1 and 2 through VC.
Matter is at the stage of order on the application of the defendants
under Section 151 C.P.C. for recalling PW-1 for cross-examination.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under Section 151
C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendants for recalling of PW-1 for cross-
examination.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that plaintiff had already
been cross-examined earlier. That subsequently, the plaintiff moved an application
under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. alongwith a new document
purportedly under Section 63 of BSA, which was allowed by this Court. That on
the LDOH i.e. 06.10.2025, the main counsel of the defendants had duly appeared
after lunch before his Court and had specifically requested for permission to
cross-examine the plaintiff with respect to the newly filed document, however, the
opportunity was not granted by this Court and the matter was fixed for final
arguments on 03.11.2025. That in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the
defendants be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff limited to the said
document. That no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff if the present
application is allowed, whereas irreparable loss will be caused to the defendants,
if not permitted to cross-examine PW-1.
-- 1 of 3 --
3. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the aforesaid
application of the defendant is liable to be dismissed as the defendants themselves
were not taking any interest in the proceedings of the court. That PW-1 was
initially examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants on 10.03.2025, and
thereafter in terms of the order dated 18.08.2025, PW-1 tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit and relied upon Certificate under Section 63 of BSA and cross-
examination of PW-1 was treated as nil despite opportunity given to the Ld.
Counsel for the defendant. That the matter is at the stage of final arguments and
the defendants are adopting delaying tactics. That the application of the
defendants be dismissed.
4. I have carefully perused the application, case file and heard the
arguments.
5. Perusal of the record reflects that PW-1 was examined-in-chief on
20.01.2025 and his cross-examination was deferred. On 10.03.2025, PW-1 was
cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 at length and PE
of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025. Thereafter, matter was at
the stage of DE, however, Ld. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 did not wish
to lead DE, consequently, DE was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025 and matter
was kept for final arguments. Thereafter an application under Order 18 Rule 17
r/w Section 151 C.P.C. was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for recalling
plaintiff/PW-1 qua tendering the Certificate under Section 63 of BSA w.r.t. the
ledger filed by the plaintiff, and the application under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w
Section 151 C.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 18.08.2025. PW-1 was further
-- 2 of 3 --
examined on 18.08.2025 and additional document i.e. Certificate under Section 63
of BSA was taken on record. The defendant was granted opportunity to cross-
examine the plaintiff. However, despite the opportunity having been granted, Ld.
Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 did not avail the same and the opportunity
to cross-examine the plaintiff was closed with the observation “Nil, opportunity
given”. At this stage, the present application seeking permission to cross-examine
the plaintiff has been filed. The application appears to be an attempt to delay the
proceedings, as sufficient opportunity had already been granted earlier which the
Ld. Counsel for the defendants failed to utilize. No sufficient or convincing
ground has been shown for allowing the present application at this belated stage.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed and disposed off.
Put up for final arguments on 27.04.2026.
(Aakash Sharma)
Civil Judge-02 (Central), Delhi
16.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --