MUNNI DEVI vs TELE WOOD

Judgment text excerpt

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 8th April, 2025 + CM(M) 543/2023 MUNNI DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarvesh Chouwdhary, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. Jyotirmay Vasishtt and Mr. Sumit Srivastava, Advocates. versus TELE WOOD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aayushi Jain and Mr. Mohit Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM(M) 543/2023 & CM APPL. 20740/2025 (filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 151 CPC) 1. Plaintiff (respondent herein) had moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking to lead evidence in rebuttal by moving an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. Such application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2022. 2. Defendant, feeling aggrieved, has challenged the abovesaid order. 3. During pendency of the present petition, this Court had permitted the learned Trial Court to record evidence of the proposed witness i.e. one official from Revenue Department (Patwari) but with direction that the matter would be kept in abeyance till further orders Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 543/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:14:15 are passed by this Court. It is apprised that such witness has already been examined. 4. The present application has now been moved by respondent/plaintiff wherein it has been contended that in order to avoid any further delay in the matter, the plaintiff would have no objection if the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed further with the matter, while ignoring the abovesaid rebuttal evidence which was recorded/sought to be recorded by virtue of impugned order dated 02.08.2022. 5. All in all, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that she would have no objection if