PADMA GUPTA Vs. MADHUBALA RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 2.2.2017 whereby the cross-examination of Arpit Rastogi PW-2 was closed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's counsel had an eye operation on 1.2.2017 and, therefore, requested for adjournment of the matter on that count. However, the court below has rejected the prayer and closed the cross- examination of PW-2 on the ground that the concerned witness had come from Canada for leading evidence and on the previous date i.e. 31.1.2017, his cross-examination could have been conducted but same was not done. Accordingly, the cross- examination of said witness Arpit Rastogi was closed as he was to go back to Canada on 5.2.2017.

(3.) Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent submits that earlier opportunity was given to the respondent to lead evidence on the cost of Rs.1,000/- and, therefore, the evidence of the concerned person was to be recorded. However, adjournment was sought on the behest of the counsel for Arpit Rastogi and the petitioner ought to have engaged another counsel for the said purpose.