LAWS(DLH)-1994-4-67

SANJAY SAPRA Vs. STATE

Decided On April 29, 1994
SANJIV SAPRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by respondent No.2 for permission to cross-examine the witnesses already produced nythe petitioner i.e. S/ Shri Prem Nath Batra, Raghu Nath batra and Sanjeev Sapra who have already been examined in the present case by the petitioner.

(2.) It has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent by Mr R.K.Saini, Advocate that the applicant was not aware of the present proceedings which were initiated by the petitioners for the grant of probate in respect of an alleged will dated February 20.1980 left by one Shri O.P.Sapra, father of the respondents. She was never served with the summonses of the present case as is manifest from the record. She came to know with regard to the present proceedings when she was called as a witness by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 thereafter applied to the Indian Council for Legal Aid & Advice for legal aid and it was only when that she was provided with the services of a counsel. In case the applicant does not cross-examine the witnesses already produced on behalf of the petitioner she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and damage and her interest and defence would be prejudiced. The application is supported by an affidavit.

(3.) The application has been vehemently opposed by the petitioner. It has been urged for and on behalf of the respondent that It is false and preposterous that the applicant did not know the present proceedings. In fact, she was fully aware of the present proceedings, yet she chose not to cross-examine his witnesses. All the respondents have been duly served as is manifest from the affidavit filed with regard to the service, sworn by Shri Sanjiv Sapra i.e. the petitioner. Furthermore, the citation was published in the Hindustan Times dated November 2,1983. Hence, it can be safely presumed that the applicant came to know with regard to the present proceedings.