M/S S N Electricals v. Nbcc Service Limited & ANR

$-22 & *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 282/2020 i& CM APPLs. 8360/2020, 8361/2020 ^ CM(M) 283/2020 & CM APPLs. 8368/2020, 8369/2020 M/S S N ELECTRICALS Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rishab Raj Jain & Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocates (M-9811079695) versus NBCC SERVICE LIMITED & ANR Respondents Through:

Mr. Gudipati G. Kashyap & Mr. K.

Sharat Kumar, Advocates (MQ 9958832068)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

ORDER

% 03.03.2020 The present petitions arise out of two suits for recovery. One has been filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs - NBCC Service Limited and NBCC (India) Ltd. (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs") against the Petitioner/Defendant - M/s S.N. Electricals (hereinafter, 'Defendant") for a sum of Rs.28,86,734/- and a counter-suit has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents for a sum of Rs.50,43,643/-. Both suits are pending before the Trial Court. Vide order dated 2"'^ August, 2019, at joint request of the counsel, the two suits were consolidated for the purpose of recording evidence. The Plaintiffs filed the affidavit of their witness PW-1 i.e., Mr. Amarendra Das, on IP^ March, 2019 and the same was tendered. The matter was adjourned to 2"'' August, 2019 for cross-examination. On 2"^ August, 2019, the matter was further adjourned to 20^^ December, 2019 for cross-examination of PW1. By:AMULYA

On 20^^ December, 2019, as Id. counsel for the Defendant was held up. in another court a pass-over was sought. The matter was passed over twice and was thereafter taken up at 11.50 a.m. Since the Defendant's counsel could not reach, the opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 was closed. Ld. counsel for the Defendant submits that he was held up in the Tis Hazari Courts where arguments were being heard in another matter and accordingly, he could not reach the Saket Courts in time. It is submitted that there was no intention to delay the matter.

This Court has perused the court diary of the counsel as also the order passed in the other matter where the counsel was busy and arguments were being heard. This Court is convinced that there was no negligence on the part of the counsel. In any case, the litigant ought not to be allowed to suffer on account of its counsel being held-up in another Court. Accordingly, an opportunity for cross-examination of PW-1 is granted, subject to terms. The Defendant shall now cross-examine the Plaintiffs' witness on the next date fixed before the Trial Court, subject to lump sum costs of Rs. 10,000/- being paid to the witness. The Defendant shall ensure that it does not seek any unnecessiary adjournments before the Trial Court or delay the matter in any manner.

With these observations, both the petitions are disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGBf, J /ilARCH 03,2020 (^ahul/^