RUKMANI DEVI Vs. SHANTI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was summoned as a witness challenge the order dated 25th May, 1982 of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi issuing non-bailable warrant against her for appearance in court and also show cause notice to her surety. Briefly the facts are that originally Smt. Rukmani Devi the petitioner filed the suit for possession and mesne profits on 18th May, 1970 against Hari Parkash defendant-respondent No 2 alleging that she was owner of property No : 2962, Kucha Maidas Bazar, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi and the defendant was in illegal possession of a room on second floor of the said property. The defendant pleaded that he was tenant under her in the said room on second floor. Smf. Rukmani Devi petitioner sold the property on 5th September, 1970 to Smt. Shanti Aggarwal. On an application being made the name of Smt. Shanti Aggarwal (resoon- dent No. 1) was substituted as plaintiff in place of the petitioner Smt. Rukmani Devi.

(2.) On 21st March, 1977 the respondent No. 1 filed an application for examination of the petitioner as a witness on commission alleging that she was a Pardanashin lady ; she had never attended any court, and therefore she be examined at her residence preferably by a lady lawyer as she was very orthodox. The defendant contested the application alleging that the petitioner was not a pardanashin lady. The court dismissed the application by order dated 6th May, 1977 on the ground that no affidavit in support thereof was filed. The plaintiff was however permitted to examine her as a witness in court. An application for review filed by the plaintiff on 26th May, 1977 was also dismissed by order dated 3rd December, 1977 on the ground that there was no error apparent on record.

(3.) On 13th February, 1978 the petitioner herself made an application under Sections 132 and 151 read with Order 26 rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') alleging that she had been summoned as a witness for 17th February, 1978 that she was an orthodox Hindu lady observing Pardah, and according to custom and manner prevalent in her community, she did not appear in public or in court, that she was therefore exempted from attending court personally. The defendant resisted the application and the court dismissed it on 6th March, 1978, without giving any reason for the same. It was not determined whether she was a Pardanashin lady.