Gurmeet Singh vs S.M. Cold Warehouse Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This order will dispose of CR No. 4324 of 2014 titled Gurmeet Singh v. S.M. Cold Warehouse Pvt. Ltd. and others and CR No. 4323 of 2014 titled Gurmeet Singh v. SM. Cold Warehouse Pvt. Ltd. and others. The petitioner is the applicant under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC complaining of breach of injunction order passed in 2008 at the hands of the respondents. He has been cross-examined thrice at length by the opposing counsel. He was last cross-examined on March 7, 2014 when his further cross-examination was deferred as it could not be completed before the lunch break and thereafter the Presiding Officer had to proceed on leave as was not available in the post lunch sitting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of business compulsions the petitioner could not appear twice after March 7, 2014 and his cross-examination was deferred by court on both the dates. These were however subject to last opportunity granted. The defendants have not made a statement that they do not want to cross-examine Gurmeet Singh any further from what was recorded on March 7, 2014.

In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the defendants should either make a statement that they do not wish to cross-examine the petitioner any further or instead may want to do so in order to settle the matter one way or the other. The impugned order dated May 23, 2014 closes evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by order of the Court. The deposition thus remains incomplete With the views of the defendants not available on record of whether or not they wish to further cross-examine Gurmeet Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner would not lead any further evidence in support of his application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

There appears to be some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It would do better if the defendants disclose their stand on this aspect to remove any doubts. By closing the evidence of the plaintiff the defendants should not be deprived of their right to conclude cross-examination of the petitioner if they want to.

In these circumstances, the matter is remitted to the trial Court The petitioner would appear on the next date of hearing when the defendants may either choose to close the cross-examination or seek remaining cross-examination, if any. The trial Court would act accordingly in the face of the statement made by the defendant before the court. However, parties would have only one opportunity to do so. In view of the above, the impugned order closing evidence is deferred to accommodate the statement of the defendants they may wish to make on the next date of hearing before the trial Judge.