ASHOK KUMAR Vs. JAIPAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are three suits pending inter se between the parties. One suit has been filed by the landlord Jaipal Gupta i.e. suit no.171/07/99 seeking possession, mesne profits and damages qua the suit property. The suit premises have been depicted in redline in the site plan and forming a part of shop no.36, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi which has been filed along with the suit. Two other suits have been filed by the tenant Ashok Kumar. The first suit no.553/06/99 seeks perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from suit premises. The second suit filed by the tenant is suit No.552/06/99 seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendant directing him to remove the gate fixed by him at point X in the suit property and to remove the lock put by him over the lock of the plaintiff on the main gate as a result of which the plaintiff is not able to enjoy the suit premises.

(2.) IN all the three petitions before this Court the aggrieved party is the tenant.

(3.) THE second order impugned before this Court is the order dated 27.9.2010 vide which the application filed by the tenant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to cross-examine the plaintiff Jaipal Gupta had been dismissed. Record shows that the matter had been fixed for cross- examination of Jai Pal Gupta on 04.12.2007. Jaipal Gupta/landlord was under examination by a local commissioner; examination was being conducted at the residence of Jaipal Gupta. THE contention of the tenant/Ashok Kumar in his application was that the counsel Ms.Seema Bengani was busy in the Apex Court and she had requested through her junior to take an adjournment in the said matter; her Junior without her instructions conducted the cross- examination of the witness; this cross-examination was not sufficient; as such permission has been sought for further cross- examination of Jaipal Gupta. Affidavit of the counsel Ms.Seema Bengani has also been filed. This application had been dismissed by the impugned order.