Harjeet Kaur v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation

$3&4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 401/2015 HARJEET KAUR Petitioner Through Mr. Vatsal Kumar, Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advs.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv.

+ CM(M) 403/2015 HARJEET KAUR Petitioner Through Mr. Vatsal Kumar, Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advs.

versus SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HONtBLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 26.05.2015 The petitioner was plaintiff in the two suits being CS No. 47/12 and 46/12. Since the two suits were pertained to the parties but for different transactions, the evidence by way of affidavit of PW- 1 Pappu Seth in the two proceedings got exchanged which fact was later realised after the evidence was tendered. Consequently, the petitioner filed applications under Section 151 CPC to place on record fresh affidavits of PW-1 Pappu Seth. CM(M) Nos. 401/2015 & 403/2015 By:AMULYA

Learned counsel for the parties state that the proper course for the petitioner would be to place on record additional affidavits rectifying the earlier mistake and leading further evidence after seeking leave of the Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties leave is granted to the petitioner to lead additional evidence in both the suits whereby rectification of the earlier affidavit can be carried out and fresh evidence: adduced, subject to a cost of5OOO/- each to be paid to the SDMC. Petitions are disposed of.

~~- MUKTA GUPTA, J.

MAY 269 2015 'ga'

CM(M) Nos. 401/2015 & 403/2015