SIGMA FREUDENBERG NOK P LTD Vs. VINAY TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition, petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 04. 04. 2007 passed by Learned ADJ, Delhi by which evidence of petitioner was closed due to non-appearance of witness of petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER company has filed a Civil Suit against respondents seeking reliefs of specific performance, recovery and damages on account of breach of employment agreement, undertaking and bond agreement. Respondent no. 1 is an employee of petitioner company who had joined employment of petitioner company on 15. 09. 2001. Respondent no. 2 is the surety who has executed surety bond dated 07. 11. 2004 in favour of the petitioner company for the payment of losses/damages suffered/incurred by the petitioner due to negligence by respondent no. 1 or for violation of any terms and conditions of agreement/undertaking given by respondent no. 1. It is stated that after the completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 17. 02. 2006. Issues no. 1 and 2 being preliminary issues, were decided on 18. 10. 2006 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for the evidence of petitioner/plaintiff. It is submitted that on 26. 02. 2007, examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of one witness was filed. The said witness could not appear on that day as he was suffering from fever and his medical certificate was also filed. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 04. 04. 2007 for concluding the evidence of petitioner. It is stated that on that day, witness could not appear and the Learned ADJ closed the evidence of the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner has argued that Learned ADJ has arbitrarily closed the evidence of the petitioner without affording reasonable opportunity to petitioner to lead its evidence. It is contended that impugned order is passed in haste and has serious consequences upon petitioner in as much as petitioner will not be in a position to prove its case on merits. It is contended that petitioner has to produce only one witness whose affidavit has already been filed and if impugned order is set aside, it will not cause any prejudice to respondent as respondents will have opportunity to lead their evidence.