RAJ KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 ('Act of 1966') impugning the order dtd. 5/1/2024 passed in Test Cas No. 47/2000 ('Impugned Order') whereby the learned Single Judge directed the official witness i.e., PW-17 [officer of Union Bank of India] to trace the relevant record with regards to the two saving bank accounts of late Shri Kasturi Lal Malhotra for the years 1999-2004 as expeditiously as possible and latest within four weeks from the date of the said order, failing which the Local Commissioner has been directed to close the evidence of PW -17.

(2.) Appellant is the son of late Shri Kasturi Lal Malhotra, who expired on 13/9/1999. The Appellant filed TEST CAS No. 47/2000 to prove the registered Will dtd. 18/1/1999 said to be executed by his deceased father. The issues were framed on 3/7/2009 and the recording of evidence commenced before the Local Commissioner in August, 2009, but remains pending. The Appellant has completed recording the evidence of sixteen witnesses and the issue in the present appeal is with respect to time bound directions to the last witness PW-17.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant states that PW-17 is the last official witness. He states that the said witness appeared for the first time on 10/11/2023, 15/12/2023 and thereafter on 05/1/2024. He states therefore, there has been no delay in recording of the evidence of the said witness contrary to the findings of the impugned order. He states that the delay has occurred as the record which the witness is required to produce pertains to the year 1999-2004 and it is on account of Union Bank of India's own administrative protocol that the witness has sought adjournment to trace the old record. He states that PW-17 has made attempts on 15/12/2023, 19/1/2024 and 2/2/2024 to locate the old records. However, the same have been futile. He states that in these facts, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the preemptive directions in the impugned order. He states that the production of said documents is necessary to enable the Appellant to prove his allegation of use of funds by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.