HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA Vs. ANAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has impugned the order dated 16.07.2011 vide which the application filed by the defendant with a request to take on record his amended written statement and to frame an additional issue had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that this is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants are both descendants of Ganga Bishan @ Haldiram Bhujiawala; the plaintiffs claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark and trade-name Haldiram Bhujiawala; apprehending violation of this right, the plaintiffs had filed the present suit seeking injunction against the defendants. The defendants had disputed the claim; pursuant to permission granted by the Court to amend their written statement, the defence of the defendant in his amended written statement was that the deed of dissolution dated 16.11.1974 was a forged and fabricated document; this deed had been executed by the defendant under pressure. Initially the amendment in the written statement had been permitted by the trial Judge; this order had been upset by the High Court; the Apex Court had reaffirmed the order of the trial Judge vide its order dated 01.10.2008. The impugned order has extracted the relevant portion of the order of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court had inter-alia noted as under:-

(3.) Pursuant to the order of the Apex Court PW-1 had been examined in chief and cross-examined in part; at that stage i.e. in the midst of the cross-examination of PW-1 an application had been filed by defendant No. 4 seeking to place on record the amended written statement along with a request for framing of an additional issue; the submission before the trial Court was that the cross-examination of PW-1 had revealed that the deed of dissolution dated 16.11.1974 was prima facie a forged and fabricated document. This contention of defendant No. 4/petitioner had been rejected; trial Court had noted that the cross-examination of PW-1 is yet in progress; moreover other witnesses also have to be examined by the plaintiffs to prove the contents and execution of the aforenoted dissolution deed which included the attesting witness, chartered accountant as also the principal borrower of the company. Today on oral query, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff states that a total sum of 19 witnesses (as mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 8, 12 to 20, 24 & 25 in the list of witnesses filed in November, 2008 before the trial Court) have to be examined to prove the contents and execution of the said dissolution deed. Admittedly PW-1 is yet under cross-examination.